alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

________________ _____________
No. 1D18-2977

________________ _____________
W ILLIAM C. S IMMONS , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

________________ _____________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Wa lton County. Kelvin C. Wells, Judge.

February 8, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
R OWE , R AY , and O STERHAUS , JJ., concur.

________________ _____________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fl a. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

________________ _____________2 Andy Thomas, Public Defender, an d Kasey Helms Lacey, Assistant Public Defender, Talla hassee, for Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney Gene ral, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
R.G., Mother of W.F., S.F., I.N., 

A.N., C.N., I.G. and G.L.G., Minor 

Children,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-3470

Opinion filed November 10, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Santa Rosa County.

Marci L. Goodman, Judge.

Timothy M. Beasley of The Beasley Law Firm, P.L., Pinellas Park, for Appellant.

Matthew C. Wilson, Guardian ad Litem Program, Sanford, for Appellee Guardian 

ad Litem.

Rebecca Kapusta, General Counsel, and Dwight O. Slater, Appellate Counsel, 

Children’s Legal Services, Tallahassee, for Appellee Department of Children and 

Families.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

OSTERHAUS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
Sanitized Processing Conso lidated Chemical Substance 1:

Manufacture of Pre - Impregnated Substrate
# C_2014098EN.01000101.xml

| 3.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7193 — Gores/Premier Foods/Hovis)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 98/01

On 26 March 2014, 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 language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition 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 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/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7193. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32014M7193. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
PORTER W. WRIGHT,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2943

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 3, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Linda F. McCallum, Judge.

Porter W. Wright, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
# C_2016038EN.01000101.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2016/C 038/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 27, 25.1.2016

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 16, 18.1.2016

OJ C 7, 11.1.2016

OJ C 429, 21.12.2015

OJ C 414, 14.12.2015

OJ C 406, 7.12.2015

OJ C 398, 30.11.2015

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
# CA2014427EN.01000201.xml

| 28.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 427/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 427/2

---

REVIEW OF COMPETITION C A OFFICIAL JOURNALS

(2014/C 427 A/02)

Please find below the list of C A Official Journals published during the present year.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Official Journals are published in all language versions.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 176 | |
| 178 | |
| 180 | |
| 182 | |
| 185 | |
| 186 | |
| 188 | |
| 195 | |
| 207 | |
| 209 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 211 | |
| 217 | |
| 219 | |
| 242 | |
| 254 | |
| 255 | |
| 256 | (LV) |
| 258 | (RO) |
| 262 | (EN) |
| 267 | (SL) |
| 270 | (FR) |
| 272 | (DA) |
| 274 | (IT) |
| 277 | |
| 283 | |
| 289 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 293 | (NL) |
| 295 | (MT) |
| 297 | |
| 299 | |
| 304 | |
| 321 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 325 | (SL) |
| 332 | |
| 334 | |
| 340 | |
| 342 | (EN) |
| 352 | |
| 354 | |
| 358 | |
| 366 | |
| 376 | |
| 378 | (SV) |
| 381 | |
| 384 | |
| 385 | (PT) |
| 390 | (HR) |
| 391 | |
| 410 | |
| 412 | |
| 425 | (EN/IT/LT) |
| 427 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

176

178

180

182

185

186

188

195

207

209

(DE/EN/FR)

211

217

219

242

254

255

256

(LV)

258

(RO)

262

(EN)

267

(SL)

270

(FR)

272

(DA)

274

(IT)

277

283

289

(DE/EN/FR)

293

(NL)

295

(MT)

297

299

304

321

(DE/EN/FR)

325

(SL)

332

334

340

342

(EN)

352

354

358

366

376

378

(SV)

381

384

385

(PT)

390

(HR)

391

410

412

425

(EN/IT/LT)

427

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CORDELL RABON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

DEBBIE ASUNCION, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 15-55348

D.C. No. 5:13-cv-01977-AB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

André Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 16, 2016** 

Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Cordell Rabon appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the dismissal of a

section 2254 habeas petition on statute of limitations grounds, see Bills v. Clark,

628 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2010), and we vacate and remand.

FILED

NOV 23 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Rabon contends that his illiteracy, developmental disability, and mental

disorder entitle him to equitable tolling. The district court determined that

although Rabon suffered from learning disabilities and other mental impairments,

they were not the “but for” cause of his delay in filing a habeas petition. As

currently developed, however, the record does not support the district court’s

conclusion that Rabon was able to appreciate the need to file a timely section 2254

petition. “[M]ore factual development is required before we can say that [Rabon]

was or was not precluded from filing his petition by reason of mental impairment.”

Laws v. Lamarque, 351 F.3d 919, 924 (9th Cir. 2003).

We, therefore, vacate and remand to the district court for further factual

development. On remand, the district court should consider appointing counsel for

appellant and shall order any discovery, expansion of the record, or evidentiary

hearing necessary to determine whether Rabon is entitled to equitable tolling based

on mental impairment. See id. at 924-25.

We treat Rabon’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the certificate

of appealability. So treated, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R. 22-1(e); Hiivala 

v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999).

VACATED AND REMANDED.

2 15-55348
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH 

NO. 02-15-00205-CV 

Arthur Delgado, Jr. 

v. 

River Oaks Police Department and 

City of River Oaks 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

From the 236th District Court 

of Tarrant County (236-277180-15) 

November 23, 2016 

Opinion by Justice Gardner 

JUDGMENT 

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s orders sustaining the River Oaks Police 

Department’s and the City of River Oaks’s pleas to the jurisdiction. It is ordered 

that these orders are affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Anne Gardner__________________ 

 Justice Anne Gardner
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TYRONE GRANT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 365 EAL 2016

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of November, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.

Justices Donohue and Mundy did not participate in the consideration or decision 

of this matter.
# C_2015233EN.01000301.xml

| 17.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 233/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 233/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7650 — Katara Hospitality/Starwood Hotel & Resorts Worldwide/Westin Excelsior Hotel)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 233/05)

On 7 July 2015, 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 language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition 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 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 32015M7650. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7650. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

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

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 15784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06693]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-1308-000]


Kingfisher Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of Kingfisher Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application 
includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of 
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability is April 7, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please email <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#71373423323e1f1d181f14220401011e030531171403125f161e07"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="86c0c3d4c5c9e8eaefe8e3d5f3f6f6e9f4f2c6e0e3f4e5a8e1e9f0">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 18, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06693 Filed 3-24-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       4,734,139
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,159,451
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    748,524
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,642,114
<PP&E>                                         296,224
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,490
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,915,848
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,725,151
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        33,125
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,152,783
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,915,848
<SALES>                                     12,987,263
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                        8,406,548
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  412,919
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               808,930
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,165
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,433,307
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,342,224
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,433,307
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,091,083
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.89
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
# C_2015107EN.01000101.xml

| 30.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2015/C 107/01)

Last publication

OJ C 96, 23.3.2015

Past publications

OJ C 89, 16.3.2015

OJ C 81, 9.3.2015

OJ C 73, 2.3.2015

OJ C 65, 23.2.2015

OJ C 56, 16.2.2015

OJ C 46, 9.2.2015

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 7353** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. RAJENDRASINH BABUBAHAI MAKWANA , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore
. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. ( 1:09

- cr - 00043

- JFM

- 1; 1:13

- cv - 00058

- JFM )

Submitted : February 28, 2014 Decided: March 6, 2014

Before GREGORY , Circuit Judge , and HAMILTON and DAVIS , Senior Circuit Judge s .
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Rajendrasinh Babubahai Makwana , Appellant Pro Se. Paul Michael Cunningham, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appe llee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rajendrasinh Babubahai Makwana seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C . § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the di strict court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Makwana has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument be cause the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-3985 Directorate Identifier: 2014-NM-182-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Inspection 5.0 $ 425.00 $ 425.00 13 $5,525.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $5,525

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

JOHN SINGLETON,*

 § 

 § No. 522, 2016 

Petitioner Below, § 

 Appellant, § Court Below—Family Court of the 

 § State of Delaware 

 v. § 

 § 

YOLANDA HARDING, § File No. CN05-05568 

 § Pet. No. 16-26665 

Respondent Below, § 

Appellee. § 

Submitted: November 22, 2016 

Decided: November 28, 2016 

 ORDER

This 28th day of November 2016, it appears to the Court that, on November 

1, 2016, the Clerk issued a notice, by certified mail, directing the appellant to show 

cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for the Court’s lack of jurisdiction 

to consider an appeal from a decision issued by a Family Court Commissioner. 

The appellant has not responded to the notice to show cause within the required 

ten-day period. Therefore, dismissal of the appeal is deemed to be unopposed. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 

3(b)(2) and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

 Justice 

 

*

 The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties. Del. Supr. Ct. R. 7(d).
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 22, 2016

NO. 03-16-00114-CV

Jerry Hofrock, Appellant

v.

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC; Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae); 

and Jonathan Kantor, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the order signed by the trial court on December 9, 2015. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s order. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order. Because appellant is 

indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.