alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS January 29, 2015 ABELACOSTA, CLERK No. PD-1427-13 PD-1427-13 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 1/28/2015 4:59:34 PM Accepted 1/29/2015 8:37:21 AM ABEL ACOSTA CLERK IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS VANESSA CAMERON 

### § (CAUSENO 04-12-00294-CR A § FOURTH COURTOF § APPEALS § SANANTONIO, TEXAS) v. 

# «TC * STATE OF TEXAS

APPELLANT'SREQUESTFOR ORALARGUMENT

AND ADDITIONAL BRIEFING ONREHEARING 

### <v

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS: 

### COMES NOW VANESSA CAMERON, Respondent in the above styled 

### and numbered cause, by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully 

### requests leave for filing Defendant's Briefon Rehearing and Response to State's Motion for Rehearing and requests oral argument on same pursuant to Rules 79.4 and 70.4 ofthe Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure. 

### WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays this Court to 

### grant oral argument and to grant leave for the preparation and submission of additional briefing. Respectfully submitted
Gerald H. Goldstein State Bar No. 08101000DonaldH. Flanary, III State Bar No. 24045877 

### Goldstein, Goldstein, & Hilley 

### 29thFloor Tower Life Building SanAntonio, Texas 78205 210-226-1463, 210-226-8367 facsimile
John T. Hunter State Bar No. 24077532 

### 310 S. St. Mary's St. 

### Suite 1840

- TowerLife Bldg. SanAntonio, Texas 78205 210-399-8669 210-568-4927 facsimile 

### By:/s/_ GERALD H. GOLDSTEIN 

### Attorney for VanessaCameron

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### This is to certify that on January 28, 2015, a true and correct copy ofthe above and foregoing document was served on Jay Brandon, Assistant District 

### Attorney at the Bexar County District Attorney's Office, by electronic mail to iay.brandon@bexar.org. -/§/ Gerald H. Goldstein
#### REECE v. CITY OF WICHITA FALLS

No. 14040.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

March 1, 1940.

Rehearing Denied March 22, 1940.

Kearby Peery, of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

Thelbert Martin and T. A. Hicks, both of Wichita Falls, and Hobert Price, of Dallas, for appellee.

BROWN, Justice.

This is a companion case to that of Pittman v. City of Wichita Falls, reported in Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 847, writ dismissed, and it was agreed by counsel that the facts adduced upon the trial of the Pittman case should constitute the Statement of Facts in the instant suit.

The trial court instructed a verdict for the defendant City, and the plaintiff has appealed.

Appellant contends that she pleaded a different cause of action in this case from that pleaded in the Pittman case.

If it should be considered that a somewhat different case, with respect to the duty imposed upon the City and its consequent negligence, was pleaded — all of which we doubt — nevertheless, the facts are the same.

On the authority of Pittman v. City of Wichita Falls, Tex.Civ.App., 120 S.W.2d 847, and the principles there announced, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 20-0560 TERRY SULLIVAN,

Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee. 

### JAN 2 6 2021 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Pursuant to Appellant's motion for an extension oftime,and good cause therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Appellant has until March 8, 2021, within which to file his opening brief. DATED this 

### 4 day ofJanuary, 2021. For the Court,
ChiefJustice 01/26/2021
Case Number: DA 20-0560
##### 



Exhibit 99.1
 
 N E W S R E L E A S E
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    
    Contact:August 1, 2007
    
    Investor Relations Dept.(800) 536-7453
 Torch Energy Royalty Trust receives request for Special Meeting of Unitholders to Terminate the
Trust




---



##### 



Additional Information Concerning Torch, the Administrative Services Provider:




---



#####
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 50095 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
VICTOR MANUEL CASTILLO

- OLIVAS , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:12

- CR

- 275

- 2

Before HAYNES, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Victor Manuel Castillo

- Olivas has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Castillo

- Olivas has fi led a response and moves for the appointment of new appellate counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Castillo

- Olivas ’s claims of ine ffective assistance of

* 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 December 12, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-50095 Document: 00515233932 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2019No. 19

- 50095

2 counsel; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 )

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Castillo

- Olivas ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. T he motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Castillo

- Olivas’s motion to appoint new counsel is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner , 158 F.3d 901, 902

- 03 (5th Cir. 1998). Case: 19-50095 Document: 00515233932 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2019
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-1693

WILLIAM DENNIS HUBER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LIBERTY UNIVERSITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District

Judge. (CA-94-77-L)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: March 29, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Dennis Huber, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Eastwood Glenn,

Phillip Richard Lingafelt, GLENN, FLIPPIN, FELDMANN & DARBY,

Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

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 dismissing

his state law fraud action as barred by the applicable statute of

limitations. We have reviewed the record and the district court's

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the

reasoning of the district court. Huber v. Liberty Univ., No. CA-94-

77-L (W.D. Va. Feb. 17, 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
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3168 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to include bridges on the National 

Highway Performance Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2015 

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York (for himself and Mr. ZELDIN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to include bridges 

on the National Highway Performance Program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe Bridges Invest5 ment Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIGIBLE PROJECTS. 

7 Section 119(d)(2) of title 23, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following: 

9 ‘‘(Q) Construction, reconstruction, resur10 facing, restoration, rehabilitation, and preservaVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:38 Jul 25, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3168.IH H3168

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3168 IH

1 tion of, or operational improvements for, a 

2 bridge not on the National Highway System if 

3 such bridge is on the Federal-aid Highway Sys4 tem’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## MA**TERIA LS NOT INCLUDED IN** 

**AI RWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (A**  **D) DOCKET**

**FAA -**  **2013 -**  **04 9**  **1** Docket Number
**2008 -**  **SW -**  **012 -** **AD** Directorate Identifier Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket Bell Alert Se rvice Bulletin No. 430 - 05 - 34, dated June 10, 2005 .


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

Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region Rules Docket 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663 Fort W orth, Texas 76137 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
#### MADISON v. BAKER et ux.

No. 10329.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

June 8, 1938.

Rehearing Denied July 20, 1938.

Jones & Jones and A. Morales, Jr., all of Del Rio, for appellant.

A. E. Owens, of Alpine, Phil B. Foster, of Del Rio, and Dorsey B. Hardeman, of' San Angelo, for appellees.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

A. Madison brought this action in trespass to try title to recover of George W. Baker and wife the title and possession .of Survey 108, Block D-7, Cert.1682, E. L. and R. R. Ry. Co., in Val Verde County, and, in a supplemental petition, sought to recover the value of improvements alleged to.be on said premises.

In their trial answer the Bakers pleaded not guilty, “save and except” to disclaim any title, etc., in said survey 108; and, further, “that, as to the improvements alleged by plaintiff to be situated in said Section 108, these defendants deny each and every allegations in plaintiff’s petition contained and as to their location and, in particular, deny the allegations in paragraph 3, of plaintiff’s original petition and demand strict proof thereof, and say that said improvements are located on Section 107, Block D-7, E. L. & R. R. Ry Co. lands in Val Verde County, Texas, which Section 107 is owned by these defendants in fee simple, together with said improvements.”

At the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence the trial court granted defendants’ motion for instructed verdict, and rendered judgment decreeing title to Survey 108 to Madison, on Bakers’ disclaimer, but denied all other relief sought by either party. Madison has appealed. The parties will be designated as plaintiff and defendants, respectively, as in the trial court.

The parties seem to agree that the suit was resolved into a dispute as to the true boundary line between Survey 108, owned by plaintiff, and Survey 107, owned by defendants, but the trial judge decreed no settlement of the issue, except to deny recovery to plaintiff thereon, apparently upon the theory, and an implied finding, that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a decree of boundary.

In this the court did not err. The evidence to show 'a boundary dispute or to settle it if it exists, was too vague, indefinite, unintelligible and incomplete to *934warrant an adjudication of' such issue, and the trial court could do no more than render judgment, as it did, upon defendants’ disclaimer of title to the survey-claimed by plaintiff in his petition.

Plaintiff complains because the trial court adjudged the costs against him, but that action does not involve an abuse of discretion.

The judgment is affirmed, without prejudice to the rights of the parties to a future adjudication of the questions of boundary and improvements in good faith.
----

(2004/C 65 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1425/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(15 April 2003)

Subject:   Directive on packaging and packaging waste

The Directive on packaging and packaging waste (94/62/EC (1)) is currently undergoing revision. Article 6 of the Directive sets quantitative targets for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste. The beginning of Article 6 reads as follows:

Can the Commission confirm that there is a firm obligation on the Member States to attain the targets for recovery and recycling?

Can the Commission confirm that, as the guardian of the legal framework responsible for ensuring that EC legislation is properly transposed, complied with and implemented, it will initiate proceedings against any Member State which does not attain the targets contained in Article 6?

Does the Commission agree that the measures to be taken by the Member States are only a means of fulfilling the obligation laid down in Article 6 and are not the objective per se?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 June 2003)

The achievement of the recovery and recycling targets are legal obligations for the Member States, required under Article 6 of Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994, on packaging and packaging waste. The Commission can confirm that it will fulfil its role as guardian of the EC Treaty and follow-up cases of non-compliance with the targets of the Directive. This will, if necessary, include the initiation of infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

Article 6 of Directive 94/62/EEC stipulates that the Member States shall take the necessary measures to attain the targets set out by that provision. The Member States have the possibility to choose the means they use to achieve these targets provided that Community legislation is complied with.

----

(1)OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.

----
<PAGE>
 
                  PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                  EXHIBIT 21
                                 SUBSIDIARIES

The accounts of all of the subsidiaries are included in the Company's
Consolidated Financial Statements. Set forth below are the names of certain
active corporate subsidiaries of the Company as of June 30, 1997. Certain
subsidiaries are omitted because such subsidiaries considered individually or in
the aggregate would not constitute a significant subsidiary.

Indented names are subsidiaries of the company under which they are indented:
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                            Percent
                                                  Jurisdiction in          Ownership
                                                which Incorporated        By Immediate
          Name of Company                           or Organized             Parent
          ----------------------------------    ------------------        ------------
<S>                                             <C>                       <C>
          Playboy Enterprises, Inc. (parent)      Delaware
           Lake Shore Press, Inc.                 Delaware                     100%
           Lifestyle Brands, Ltd.                 Delaware                     100%
           Playboy Models, Inc.                   Illinois                     100%
           Playboy Products and Services
            International, B.V.                   The Netherlands              100%
          Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.       Delaware                     100%
           After Dark Video, Inc.                 Delaware                     100%
           Alta Loma Productions, Inc.            Delaware                     100%
           Cameo Films, Inc.                      Illinois                     100%
           Impulse Productions, Inc.              Delaware                     100%
           Precious Films, Inc.                   California                   100%
           AdulTVision Communications, Inc.       Delaware                     100%
           Mystique Films, Inc.                   California                   100%
           Women Productions, Inc.                California                   100%
          Playboy Clubs International, Inc.       Delaware                     100%
           Playboy Preferred, Inc.                Illinois                     100%
          Critics' Choice Video, Inc.             Illinois                     100%
          Special Editions, Ltd.                  Delaware                     100%
          Playboy Shows, Inc.                     Delaware                     100%
          Telecom International, Inc.             Florida                      100%
          Playboy Gaming International, Ltd.      Delaware                     100%
           Playboy Gaming Greece, Ltd.            Delaware                     100%
          Playboy Properties, Inc.                Delaware                     100%
          VIPress Poland Sp. z o.o                Poland                        88%
</TABLE>
### Subject: FW: TODAY: EPA Webinar on Proposed NSPS Revision for Residential Wood Heaters 

### Importance: High**Remind~r** 

### Notice



# --- -------·----- Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:57AM 

### Subject: TODAY: EPA Webinar on Proposed NSPS Revision for Residential Wood Heaters 

### Importance: High 

### TODAY: Webinar: Proposed NSPS Revision for Residential Wood Heaters -- General Overview 

### Q.!!!: Thursday, March 06, 2014 

### Time: 2:00-3:00 p.m . (Eastern); 1 :00-2 :00 pm (Central); 12:00-1:00 pm (Mountain) ; 11:00 am- 12:00 pm (Pacific); 10:00 am- 11:00 am (Alaskan) 

### Call in#: 1-866-299-3188; 9195415624# Intended· Audience: Tribes 

### Adobe Connect: Link to Join the Webinar at the specified day and time: https://epa.connectsolutjons.com/r5thsfl7tjs/ Choose the "enteras Guest" option and type in your name and organization. 

### Description: Gil Wood , from EPA's Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards, will present'an overview of the proposed updates to the New Source Performance Standards for Residential Wood Heaters
. The updates are designed to make new residential wood heaters significantly cleaner, beginning in 2015. The proposed updates would strengthen the emissions standards for new wood stoves, while establishing federal air standards for other new wood heaters, including outdoor
.and indoor wood-fired hydronic heaters, forced-air furnaces and masonry heaters. The proposal would not affect existing woodstoves and other wood-burning heaters currently in use in people's homes. The proposal would not affect heaters fueled solely by gas, oil or coal. Following the presentation, EPA will answer 

### clarifying questions. Note that although EPA is hosting the webinar during the public commentperiod, the webinaris not

### a means of providing comment on the proposed rule. More information - including the rule, fact sheets, how to register on-line to speak at the February 261 h public hearing in Boston and how to submit comments and data to the docket - is available at 

### http://www2.epa.gov/residential-woodheaters/proposed-new-source-performance-standards-residential-wood-heaters. If you have any questions, please contact Gil Wood at Wood
.Gil@epa
.gov.

1
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3116 

To extend by 15 years the authority of the Secretary of Commerce to conduct 

the quarterly financial report program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 20, 2015 

Mr. TED LIEU of California introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To extend by 15 years the authority of the Secretary of 

Commerce to conduct the quarterly financial report program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Quarterly Financial 

5 Report Reauthorization Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR SECRETARY OF 

7 COMMERCE TO CONDUCT QUARTERLY FI8 NANCIAL REPORT PROGRAM. 

9 Section 4(b) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to amend 

10 title 13, United States Code, to transfer responsibility for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 3116 IH

1 the quarterly financial report from the Federal Trade 

2 Commission to the Secretary of Commerce, and for other 

3 purposes’’, approved January 12, 1983 (Public Law 97– 

4 454; 13 U.S.C. 91 note), is amended by striking ‘‘2015’’ 

5 and inserting ‘‘2030’’. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|                                                |
|------------------------------------------------|
|                                                |  |
| INDIANA                                        | 35-1544218 |
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |

----

----

----

|             |                        |
|-------------|------------------------|
| Exhibit No. | Description of Exhibit |

|     |                                                                                                                                                  |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2.1 | Agreement and Plan of Reorganization and Merger between First Merchants Corporation and C Financial Corporation dated as of January 5, 2015 |

|      |                                                                                                                                      |
|------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 10.1 | Voting Agreement dated January 5, 2015, by and among First Merchants Corporation and certain shareholders of C Financial Corporation |

|      |                                            |
|------|--------------------------------------------|
| 99.1 | Joint Press Release, dated January 6, 2015 |

----
IIB 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3274 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 2, 2016 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 4567 Rockbridge Road in Pine Lake, Georgia, 

as the ‘‘Francis Manuel Ortega Post Office’’. 

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


smartinez on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 3274 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. FRANCIS MANUEL ORTEGA POST OFFICE. 

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

3 Postal Service located at 4567 Rockbridge Road in Pine 

4 Lake, Georgia, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Francis Manuel Ortega Post Office’’. 

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

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

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Francis Manuel Or10 tega Post Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 1, 

2016. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Theodore J. Otto, Respondent, *v.*John L. Wegner et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Carl Sailer et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

February 27, 1958.

*Milton II. Ellerin*for appellants.

*J oseph B. Pisani*for third-party plaintiffs-respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

Under the present statute (Civ. Prac. Act, § 193-a) impleader is permitted when the third party is liable to defendant *“*for all or part of the plaintiff’s claim against him ”.

Impleader in this instance, for affirmative relief against the third-party defendant for damages independently claimed to have been sustained by the third-party plaintiff and which claim has no bearing upon the claim of the main plaintiff, should not have been allowed and the application to dismiss the second cause of action in the third-party complaint should have been granted. (See *Victory Painters & Decorators*v. *Miller,*198 Misc. 196.)

The order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion granted.

Hecht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.