alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: Frederick Louis Pugh v. Barbara Winfield

- Pugh

Appellate case number: 01

- 22

- 00007

- CV

Trial court case number: 21

- FD

- 2012

Trial court: County Court at Law No

. 1 of Galveston County

On January 10, 2022, Frederick Louis Pugh (Frederick) filed a notice of appeal from
the final decree of divorce entered by the trial court on December 20, 2021. But the trial
court set aside the divorce decree on January 10, 2022, when it issued an order rescinding
the divorce decree. 1 Consequently, i t appears :

1. the divorce decree is not effective

,

2. there is no t a f

inal divorce decree in this case , and

3. the original petition for divorce filed by Barbara Winfield

- Pugh (Barbara) is
still unresolved and needs a decision in the trial court.

This Court generally has jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments and specific interlocutory orders that the Legislature has designated as appealable orders. See Industrial Specialists, LLC v. Blanchard Refining Co. , No. 20

- 0174, 2022 WL 2082236 , at *2 (Tex. June 10, 2022); Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see also T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE § § 51.012, 51.014. Because it appears that the divorce
decree was set aside and therefore there is not a final judgment, the Court may dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 2 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a).

1 Typically, for 30 days after it signs a judgment, the trial court has authority to set aside the judgment, even if an appeal has been filed. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 329b(d).

2 A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction will not prevent Barbara or Frederick from getting a final d ivorce decree in the trial court or later filing a timely appeal of a final d ivorce d ecree

.2

Unless Frederick files a response demonstrating

, by citation to the law

, that this Court has jurisdiction o ver the appeal, this appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). A failure to respond will also result in dismissal. T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 42.3(c). Frederick ’s response, if any, is due in this Court on or before September
30 , 2022

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s Sarah Beth Landau

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: September 20, 2022
EXHIBIT 10.11

                   PROMISSORY NOTE ISSUED TO LEE FAMILY DATED
                                 JANUARY 1, 2002





<PAGE>



CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE

$14,170.83
                                                                Denver, Colorado

                                                                 January 1, 2002


         FOR VALUE RECEIVED,  PARK-PREMIER  MINING COMPANY,  a Utah  corporation
(the "Maker"), hereby promises to pay to the order of Lee Family (the "Holder"),
the principal sum of Fourteen  Thousand One Hundred  Seventy & 83/100 US Dollars
($14,170.83), together with interest on the unpaid balance at the rate of Twelve
Percent (12%) per annum, on or before January 1, 2003,  subject to conversion as
described below.

         This Note may be converted  into shares of Maker's  common stock at the
conversion  price of $.10 per share or such other  conversion price as the board
of directors may deem  appropriate,  not in excess of $.10 per share,  until the
due date hereof, at the Holder's option.

         This Note is subject to prepayment,  in whole or in part, at the option
of the  Maker  without  penalty.  Such  prepayments  shall be  applied  first to
interest accrued and then to the principal due hereunder.

         In case this Note shall not be paid in full  whenever  it shall  become
due,  the Maker agrees to pay all costs and  expenses of  collection,  including
reasonable attorney's fees, not to exceed 15% of the unpaid balance.

         All rights and  obligations  hereunder shall be governed by the laws of
the State of Colorado.

         This Note is unsecured.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  the Maker has signed this Note effective as of the
date first above written.

                                   PARK-PREMIER MINING COMPANY



                                   By: /S/ ROBERT W. DUNLAP
                                      -----------------------------------
                                   Its:   PRESIDENT
                                      -----------------------------------


Description: Cash Advances

A:/02PROMNOTES.DOC
Opinion issued August 29, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-24-00445-CR

———————————

GENEVA CHATMAN, Appellant

V.

MUHAMMAD NAZIM, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1227874

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Geneva Chatman attempts to appeal a judgment signed on June 4, 

2024. On July 1, 2024, the trial court granted appellant’s motion for new trial.

Generally, appeals may be taken only from final judgments. Lehmann v. HarCon Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). When a motion for new trial is granted, 
2

the case is reinstated upon the docket of the trial court and will stand for trial the 

same as though no trial had been had. Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 

S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex. 2005). Thus, when the trial court grants a motion for new 

trial, the trial court “essentially wipes the slate clean and starts over.” Id. Here, the 

trial court granted appellant’s motion for new trial within the period of its plenary 

power. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(d), (e); Thomas v. Oldham, 895 S.W.2d 352, 356 

(Tex. 1995). Therefore, the issues presented in this appeal are rendered moot and 

this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction. 

On August 15, 2024, the Clerk of this Court issued a Notice that this Court 

might dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction unless appellant filed a response 

within 10 days of the Notice explaining how this Court had jurisdiction over this 

appeal. Appellant did not adequately respond to the Notice. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Hightower and Countiss.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Alan
Campbell, Chief Financial Officer of Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd., certify, for purposes of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to my knowledge:



|(1) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended July 2, 2010 (the Quarterly Report), which this statement accompanies fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Freescale Semiconductor
Holdings I, Ltd.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This certificate is being furnished solely for purposes of Section 1350.

Dated: July 23, 2010



/s/ ALAN CAMPBELLAlan CampbellChief Financial Officer,Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I, Ltd.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7235

STEVEN M. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM D. SCHAEFER, Governor; COMMISSIONER

LANHAM; WARDEN BESHEARS; CAPTAIN BURKEHART;

LIEUTENANT DENNIS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-94-3153-JFM, CA-94-3267-JFM)

Submitted: November 28, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven M. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Stephanie Judith Lane-Weber, Assistant

Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaints. We have reviewed

the records and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Johnson v. Schaefer, Nos. CA-94-3153-JFM; CA-94-3267-JFM (D.

Md. Aug. 1, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
NO. 01-15-00900-CV

__________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS 

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 

_________________________________________________________________ 

NATIONAL CHURCH RESIDENCES OF ALIEF, TX., 

Appellant 

V.

HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, 

Appellee 

__________________________________________________________________ 

On Appeal from the 269th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-35858 

__________________________________________________________________ 

APPELLEE’S DESIGNATION OF LEAD APPELLATE COUNSEL

TO THE HONORABLE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS: 

Pursuant to the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.2, Appellee, Harris 

County Appraisal District, gives notice that Eric C. Farrar, State Bar No. 

24036549, will serve as lead appellate counsel in the above captioned cause. 

Please send all communications related to this matter to Mr. Farrar’s attention at 

Wortham Tower, Suite 600, 2727 Allen Parkway, Houston, Texas 77019, 

efarrar@olsonllp.com. 

Appellee, Harris County Appraisal District will also continue to be 

represented by Denis Potvin. 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00900-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

12/10/2015 4:46:41 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/10/2015 4:46:41 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
2

Respectfully submitted,

OLSON & OLSON, L.L.P.

By: /s/Eric C. Farrar

Eric C. Farrar

State Bar No. 24036549

efarrar@olsonllp.com

Denis Potvin

State Bar No. 24074909

dpotvin@olsonllp.com

Wortham Tower, Suite 600

2727 Allen Parkway

Houston, Texas 77019

Telephone: (713) 533-3800

Facsimile: (713) 533-3888

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 10th day of December 2015, a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing Appellee’s Designation of Lead Appellate Counsel was 

served on the counsel for Appellant by:

via e-service

to Tanya N. Garrison, Weycer, Kaplan, Pulaski & Zuber, P.C., 11 Greenway Plaza, 

Suite 1400, Houston, TX 77046, Telephone: (713) 961-5341, Facsimile: (713) 

961-5341.

/s/ Eric C. Farrar

Eric C. Farrar
Exhibit 21.1





ADDvantage Technologies Group, Inc.





Subsidiaries








Tulsat Corporation, an Oklahoma corporation





Tulsat–Atlanta LLC, a subsidiary of Tulsat, an Oklahoma corporation





ADDvantage Technologies Group of Nebraska, Inc. (dba “Tulsat–Nebraska”), a Nebraska corporation





ADDvantage Technologies Group of Texas (dba “Tulsat–Texas”), a Texas corporation





Jones Broadband International, Inc. (dba “Tulsat–West”), a California corporation





ADDvantage Technologies Group of Missouri, Inc. (dba “ComTech Services”), a Missouri corporation





NCS Industries, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation





Tulsat–Pennsylvania LLC (dba “Broadband Remarketing International”), a subsidiary of Tulsat, an Oklahoma corporation




Broadband Remarketing International LLC, an Oklahoma corporation
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 20-0784

Filed October 21, 2020

IN THE INTEREST OF E.W.,

Minor Child,

S.S., Mother,

Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Susan Cox, District 

Associate Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child. 

AFFIRMED.

Adam Hanson of Law Office of Adam Hanson, Des Moines, for appellant 

mother.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Toby J. Gordon, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

ConGarry D. Williams of Juvenile Public Defender, Des Moines, attorney 

and guardian ad litem for minor child.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Greer, JJ.
2

MULLINS, Judge.

A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to her child.

1

 The 

mother argues that the district court erred in terminating her parental rights 

pursuant to Iowa Code section 232.116(1)(h) (2020) because (1) the State failed 

to prove by clear and convincing evidence the child could not be returned to her 

care and (2) options other than termination were not explored. We review 

terminations of parental rights de novo. In re L.T., 924 N.W.2d 521, 526 (Iowa 

2019). “Our primary concern is the best interests of the child.” In re J.E., 723 

N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).

We deem the mother’s arguments waived for failure to cite to legal authority 

pursuant to Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.201(1)(d), .903(2)(g)(3), and 

.1401-Form 5.2 Rule 6.1401-Form 5 specifically directs the brief to “include 

supporting legal authority for each issue raised, including authority contrary to [the] 

case, if known.” The brief references only the section cited for termination. We 

affirm the juvenile court.

AFFIRMED.

 

1 The father’s parental rights were also terminated. He does not appeal.

2 Even if legal authority had been cited, we would affirm the district court. The 

mother’s initial argument focuses on her allegedly stable housing and employment. 

However, our review of the record reveals the mother’s history of housing 

instability, including frequent relocations to live with relatives in Maryland resulting 

in extended periods of no contact with the child, and admitted financial instability. 

The mother also insisted her family in Maryland would create a safe and stable 

home for the child. However, the Iowa Department of Human Services caseworker 

assigned to this family testified at the termination trial that the maternal aunt in 

Maryland had not provided all the information necessary to complete the home 

study. We agree with the district court that termination of parental rights is in this 

child’s best interests.
# C_2023230EN.01000101.xml

| 30.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 230/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 230/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10813 – BLACKSTONE / CPP INVESTMENTS / ADVARRA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 230/01)

On 16 August 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10813. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10813. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1060

NATIONAL BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

WINSTON L. SPENCE, JR., Individually and as parent and next 

friend of J.S., a minor,

 Defendant – Appellant,

and

JAYSON SPENCE,

 Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (3:11-cv-00031-JPB)

Submitted: May 31, 2012 Decided: June 7, 2012

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Winston L. Spence, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Charity K. Flynn, 

SPILMAN, THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Winston L. Spence, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order granting summary judgment to National Benefit Life 

Insurance Company and determining that the proceeds of Silvana 

Sital’s life insurance policy should be divided equally between 

her sons, Jayson Spence, an adult, and J.S., a minor. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Nat’l 

Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Spence, Case No. 3:11-cv-00031-JPB 

(N.D. W. Va. Dec. 12, 2011). We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# C_2023166EN.01000101.xml

| 11.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 166/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 166/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10733 – CMA CGM / GEFCO)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 166/01)

On 25 July 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10733. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10733. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3079 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3079

 To take certain Federal land located in Tuolumne County, California, 
into trust for the benefit of the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 15, 2015

Mr. McClintock introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To take certain Federal land located in Tuolumne County, California, 
into trust for the benefit of the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians, 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. LAND INTO TRUST.

    (a) Federal Land.--Subject to valid existing rights, all right, 
title, and interest (including improvements and appurtenances) of the 
United States in and to the Federal land described in subsection (b) 
shall be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the 
Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians for nongaming purposes.
    (b) Land Description.--The land taken into trust under subsection 
(a) is the approximately 80 acres of Federal land under the 
administrative jurisdiction of the United States Forest Service, 
located in Tuolumne County, California, and described as follows:
            (1) Southwest 1/4 of Southwest 1/4 of Section 2, Township 1 
        North, Range 16 East.
            (2) Northeast 1/4 of Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 
        1 North, Range 16 East.
    (c) Gaming.--Class II and class III gaming (as those terms are 
defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 
2703)) shall not be permitted at any time on the land taken into trust 
under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6810

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FRANK ARNOLD NESBITT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Alexandria, T. S. Ellis, III,

District Judge. (CR-89-371-A, CA-95-656-A)

Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: January 31, 1997

Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Arnold Nesbitt, Appellant Pro Se. Justin W. Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214 and denying his "Motion to Consider." We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Nesbitt, Nos. CR-89-371-A, CA-95-

656-A (Oct. 30, 1995; Mar. 12, 1996). We deny Appellant's "Motions

to Consider" as moot and dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED