alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Rose Air, LLC v. Brazoria County Appraisal District and Cheryl 

Evans in Her Capacity as Chief Appraiser

Appellate case number: 01-13-01085-CV

Trial court case number: 71172

Trial court: 412th District Court of Brazoria County

Appellant, Rose Air, LLC, has filed a Motion for Extension of Time “for filing the 

clerk’s record, payment of fees in connection with the clerk’s record, and payment of the 

appellate filing fee.” We grant the motion in part and dismiss the motion in part.

On January 16, 2014, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that, unless it provided

proof of having paid or made payment arrangements for preparation of the clerk’s record, or an 

explanation of why appellant was exempt from payment by February 5, 2013, the Court might 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3. On January 21, 

2014, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that the records show that appellant had neither 

established indigence nor paid the $195.00 appellate filing fee and, unless appellant paid the 

required fee by February 20, 2014, the Court might dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 

42.3. Appellant responded with its motion for extensions of time to pay this Court’s filing fee 

and fee for preparation of the clerk’s record.

We dismiss appellant’s request for an extension of time to file the clerk’s record. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c) (providing that appellate court may extend time to file clerk’s record if 

trial court clerk requests). We grant appellant’s request to extend the deadlines to respond to the 

January 14, 2014 notice regarding payment of fees for preparation of the clerk’s record and to 

pay the appellate filing fee of $195.00. Accordingly, unless appellant (1) provides proof of 

having paid or made payment arrangements for preparation of the clerk’s record, or an 

explanation of why appellant was exempt from payment, and (2) pays the filing fee of 

$195.00 within 30 days of the date of this order, the Court may dismiss the appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3. 
It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Jim Sharp

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: March 25, 2014
### NUMBER 13 - 1 8 - 00 329 - CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ JORGE A. ARJONA AND MARTINA ARJONA , A ppellant s ,

v. INTERNATIONAL BANK , A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Rodriguez , Contreras, and Benavides Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides On June 22, 2018, a notice of appeal was filed identifying Jorge A. Arjona and Martina Arjona as the appellants; however, the notice of appeal is only signed by Jorge A. Arjona. J or ge A. Arjona is not an attorney, therefore he is not legally permitted to represent or otherwise file pleadings on behalf of another person

. See T EX

. G OV ' T C ODE A NN

. § 81.101 (West, Westlaw through 2017, 1st C.S.); Id. § 81.102 (West, Westlaw2

through 2017, 1st C.S.); Crain v. The Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm, of the Sup.Ct. of Tex. , 11 S.W.3d 328, 332

– 34 (Tex.App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied). Accordingly, Jorge A. Arojona can represent himself pro se, but he cannot act as an attorney for Martina Arjona. On Jun e 27, 2018, this Court notified Jorge A. Arona that it appeared he is not a licensed attorney and is therefore prohibited from representing Martina Arjona . The notice directed appellants to file an amended notice of appeal signed by Martina Arjona

. On August 14, 2018, appellants were again advised to file an amended notice of appeal within ten days, otherwise, the appeal would be dismissed as to Martina A rjona. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.3(b),(c). An amended notice of appeal has not been filed. Accordingly, Martina Arjona is not a party to this appeal. On July 12, 2018 and August 14, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified Jorge A. Arijona , in accordance w ith Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless the $ 20 5.00 filing fee was paid. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 42.3(c)

. Appellant has not responded to the notice from the Clerk or paid the $ 20 5.00 filing fee. See T EX

. R. A P P

. P

. 5, 12.1(b). The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant ’ s failure to pay the filing fee , is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. See id. 42.3(b),(c). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution. GINA M. BENAVIDES , Justice
D elivered and filed the 27t h day of September , 20 1 8

.
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14** 

**- 1623** 

CRISTOBAL ANTONIO COREAS, a/k/a Juan Antonio Mejias, a/k/a Jose Mejia

,

Petitioner

,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General

,

Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : September 24, 2014 Decided: October 2, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Cristobal Antonio Coreas, Petitioner Pro Se . Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General

, Jesse David Lorenz, Emily Anne
Radford

, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding prece dent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Cristobal Antonio Coreas , a native and citizen of El

Salvador

, petition s for review of an order of the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reconsider.

We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order

and find no abuse of discretion. We therefore deny the petition

for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re:

Coreas (B.I.A. May 28, 2014). We also deny Coreas’ motion for

appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### WINTERMANN v. McDONALD, Land Com’r.

No. 7063.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 14, 1937.

For former opinion, see 102 S.W.(2d) 167.

Rex G. Baker, of Houston, and Powell, Wirtz, Rauhut & Gideon, of Austin, for relator.

William McCraw, Atty. Gen., and H. Grady Chandler and Russell Rentfro, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondents.

Bramlette & Levy and Richard B. Levy, all of Longview, amici curise.

SHARP, Justice.

The following language was used in the original opinion in this case: “That both surveyed and unsurveyed school lands situated within five miles of a producing oil or gas well are not subject to sale, but are subject to lease only.”

In order that there may be no confusion in applying the rule announced in the opinion, we here state that part of section 5 of H. B. No. 358 (Acts 1931, c. 271 [Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 5421c, § 5]) is not involved in this case. That part reads: “Any headright survey, homestead donation, pre-emption survey, scrip survey or other survey heretofore awarded or sold, which survey has been held and claimed in good faith by any party for a period of ten years prior to the date of application for patent and which surveys cannot be patented under existing laws, may be patented on payment of One Dollar ($1.00) an acre to the Land Commissioner.”

Therefore, it is not necessary to hold that land described in that part of said section cannot be acquired by purchase if it is situated within five miles of a producing oil or gas well. That question is not before us, and we express no opinion thereon.

With these statements, the motion for rehearing is overruled.
#### FULTON v. STATE.

No. 18738.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 27, 1937.

C. H. Tupper, Jr., and Wm. Tupper, both of San Angelo, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated; penalty assessed at a fine of $50 and confinement in the county jail for thirty days; also the prohibition against driving a motor vehicle upon the public highways of the State for six months.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. The indictment and proceedings appear to be regular.

An affidavit appears to have been made by the appellant for the purpose of having a statement of facts furnished to him by reason of his inability to pay or give security for the making of said statement of facts. There is nothing in the record to show that this affidavit was called to the attention of the trial court or that the judge knew or had notice of the filing thereof. It is necessary that the affidavit not only comply with the statute, but that it must be called to the attention of the trial court and the record must so reflect. See Tex.Jur. vol. 4, p. 415, § 283; Wright v. State, 125 Tex.Cr.R. 206, 67 S.W.(2d) 1118; Gonzales v. State, 114 Tex.Cr.R. 67, 23 S.W.(2d) 728; Kelley v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 91 S.W.(2d) 343; Beddingfield v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 93 S.W.(2d) 738.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         September 19, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 5, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 332 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-626, CP2024-635.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-21323 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 30162 Summary Calendar

GERALD NEAL BABINEAUX,
Plaintiff-Appellant

v.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY 27TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT; EARL B. TAYLOR,
Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:15 -CV- 1792

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gerald Neal Babineaux, Louisiana prisoner # 222961, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii) , as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Th e district court did not err in dismissing the complaint, as Babineaux’s claim that he has been denied access to the courts

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 3, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-30162 Document: 00513861940 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2017No. 16

- 30162

2 lacked an arguable basis in law or contained insufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqb al , 556 U.S. 662, 678

– 79 (2009 ); Samford v. Dretke , 562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009) . Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. Babineaux’s motions relative to discovery are
DENIED. The dismissal of Babineaux’s Section 1983 complaint as frivolous and fo r failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted counts as a strike under
Section 1915(g). See § 1915(g); Coleman v. Tollefson , 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763

– 64 (2015); Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387

– 88 (5th Cir. 1996).
Babineaux is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). Case: 16-30162 Document: 00513861940 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2017
March 8,2010 

Mr. Dennis DeVany, Chief 

X-53 EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 ; 

Re: Great Bend Municipal Airport- Hub Change 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

First of all, on behalf of our airline we would like to thank you for your continued support of this important program. 

As you may remember. Great Lakes original bid was for Denver service but we were willing to accommodate Great 

Bend in maintaining Kansas City service. However with Salina's recent decision to stay in Kansas City, we have 

had continuing dialogue with Great Bend on how best to increase their ridership. We have mutually come to the 

conclusion a change in Hubs for the community is the right choice. 

This Letter is to confirm Great Lakes Airlines & the City of Great Bend have agreed to a change in air service at the 

Great Bend Municipal Airport for the same subsidy amount in the recent Order and to eliminate fiights from Great 

Bend to Kansas City International Airport (MCI) due to the downsizing and deterioration of connecring 

opportunities in MCI. 

With your acknowledgement and approval we plan to transition the new service pattern of (2) roundtrips to Denver 

beginning April 19, 2010. 

Please call me if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Charles R. Howell IV 

1022 Airport Parkway • Cheyenne, WY 82001 • (307) 432-7000 • Fax (307) 432-7001
701 A.2d 91

#### Bobby Darnell CHISHOLM & Anthony Dixon, v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 14,

Sept. Term, 1997.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Oct. 7, 1997.

Gina M. Serra, Assistant Public Defender (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender, on brief), Baltimore, for Petitioner.

Devy Patterson Russell, Assistant Attorney General (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, on brief), Baltimore, for Respondent.

Argued before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, RAKER and WILNER, JJ., and ROBERT L. KARWACKI, J. (retired), Specially Assigned.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari in the above entitled case having been granted and argued, it is this 7th day of October, 1997

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the writ of certiorari be, and it is hereby, dismissed with costs, the petition having been improvidently granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>         5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      35,361,408
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               27,008,437
<ALLOWANCES>                                   722,639
<INVENTORY>                                 23,411,945
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            88,745,696
<PP&E>                                     102,035,870
<DEPRECIATION>                              56,996,637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             142,899,002
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,622,834
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,594,982
<OTHER-SE>                                 101,997,345
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               142,899,002
<SALES>                                    163,178,700
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           166,198,413
<CGS>                                      134,444,519
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              134,444,519
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,174,961
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,106,250
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 642
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             18,472,041
<INCOME-TAX>                                 6,882,580
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         11,589,461
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,589,461
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .74
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .74
        
















</TABLE>
OSMONICS, INC.
                  VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                             (In thousands)

              Years Ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996

        Column A       Column B        Column C      Column D  Column E

                                      Additions
                       Balance     Charged  Charged              Balance
                          At         to       to                   at
                       Beginning  Cost and   Other     Deduct-    End of
      Description      of Period  Expensed  Accounts   tions      Period
    ---------------    ---------  --------  --------   ------     ------

Year Ended
  December 31, 1998:
Current Operations:
  Allowance for
    Doubtful Accounts    $  888     $  502    $  153   $ 486(A)   $1,057
  Warranty and Start-
    Up Reserve           $1,900     $2,046        -   $1,848(B)   $2,098


Year Ended
  December 31, 1997:
Current Operations:
  Allowance for
    Doubtful Accounts    $  907      $ 139            $  158(A)   $  888
  Warranty and Start-
    Up Reserve           $1,802     $2,343            $2,245(B)   $1,900

Discontinued Operations:
  Warranty Reserve       $1,957                       $1,957(D)      - 

Year Ended
  December 31, 1996:
Current Operations:
  Allowance for
    Doubtful Accounts    $1,177      $  59            $  329(A)   $  907
  Warranty and Start-
    Up Reserve           $1,868     $2,414            $2,480(B)   $1,802

Discontinued Operations:
  Warranty Reserve       $1,957                                   $1,957


(A)  Uncollectible accounts charged against allowance.
(B)  Actual warranty claims and start-up costs charged against reserve.
(C)  Addition due to acquisition.
(D)  Company determined that the reserve was no longer required.
EXHIBIT 32

                                  CERTIFICATION
                      (Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, (i) the
foregoing Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB filed by Yadkin Valley Company (the
"Registrant") for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.

Date:  May 9, 2005                  /s/ DAVID S. PERRY
                                    -------------------------------------------
                                    David S. Perry, President and Treasurer
                                    (principal executive and financial officer)


                                       14
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SAID FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                      12,685,433
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,953
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,812,499
<PP&E>                                       1,192,377
<DEPRECIATION>                                 472,600
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,532,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          727,605
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,804,619
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,804,671
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,472,043
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,613,957
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,141,914)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,141,914)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,141,914)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (415.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>