alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00464-CV

Omar Alonso GONZALES dba Alonso Diesel,

Appellant

v.

Luis GALVAN and Alamo Grading, LLC,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CV04916

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 23, 2016

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellant is pro se in this appeal. The reporter’s record was originally due on August 30, 

2016. On August 30, 2016, the court reporter filed a Notification of Late Record, stating the 

reporter’s record had not been filed in this appeal because appellant had failed to pay or make 

arrangements to pay the reporter’s fee for preparing the record. On September 2, 2016, this court 

issued an order stating that, if appellant desired a reporter’s record, and had not already done so, 

appellant was required to (1) request in writing, no later than September 12, 2016, that a reporter’s 

record be prepared and (2) designate in writing, no later than September 12, 2016, the exhibits and 
04-16-00464-CV

- 2 -

those portions of the record to be included in the reporter’s record. Id. We also ordered appellant 

to file a copy of the request with both the trial court clerk, id. at 34.6(b)(2), and this court no later 

than September 12, 2016. Finally, we ordered appellant to provide written proof to this court no 

later than September 12, 2016 that either (1) the reporter’s fee had been paid or arrangements had

been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant was entitled to appeal without paying the 

reporter’s fee. 

Because appellant did not respond to our September 2, 2016 order, appellant’s brief became 

due on October 19, 2016, without benefit of a reporter’s record. Because appellant did not file his 

brief or a motion for extension of time in which to file his brief, on October 28, 2016, we ordered 

appellant to file his brief and a written response reasonably explaining his failure to timely file the 

brief. Our order cautioned appellant that if he failed to file a brief and the written response by the 

date ordered, we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a); 

see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal if appellant has failed to comply 

with a court order).

Appellant has not responded to our orders; therefore, this appeal is dismissed for want of 

prosecution.

PER CURIAM
# C_2016210EN.01000102.xml

| 11.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 210/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 210/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8022 — KKR/Airbus Defence Electronics)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 210/02)

On 3 June 2016, 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:

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 32016M8022. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8022. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
# C_2014434EN.01000201.xml

| 4.12.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 434/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 434/2

---

Special Report No 17/2014 ‘Can the EU's Centres of Excellence initiative contribute effectively to mitigating chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear risks from outside the EU?’

(2014/C 434/02)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 17/2014 ‘Can the EU's Centres of Excellence initiative contribute effectively to mitigating chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear risks from outside the EU?’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors' website: http://eca.europa.eu

A hard copy version of the report may be obtained free of charge on request to the Court of Auditors:

| European Court of Auditors |
| --- |
| Publications (PUB) |
| 12, rue Alcide De Gasperi |
| 1615 Luxembourg |
| LUXEMBOURG |
| Tel. +352 4398-1 |
| E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu |

European Court of Auditors

Publications (PUB)

12, rue Alcide De Gasperi

1615 Luxembourg

LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1

E-mail: eca-info@eca.europa.eu

or by filling in an electronic order form on EU-Bookshop.

---
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

FEBRUARY 4, 2009

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-12474

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-00090-CR-5-001-RS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant.

versus

RONNIE MAPLES,

a.k.a. AMP,

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(February 4, 2009)

Before BARKETT, PRYOR and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.

*

PER CURIAM:

 Honorable Jerome Farris, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by *

designation.
The government appeals the grant of a sua sponte 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

motion to reduce Ronnie Maples’s sentence for violations of 21 U.S.C. §§

841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(A)(iii) in (1) conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to

distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine and (2) in distributing and

possessing with intent to distribute more than 5 grams of crack cocaine.

Following the adoption of Amendment 706 to the United States Sentencing

Guidelines (U.S.S.G.), the district court reduced Maples’s 188-month sentence to

1

162 months. Although Maples had received a downward departure for substantial

assistance according to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, his original guideline range of life

imprisonment under § 5G1.1(b) was based on a mandatory minimum, not on his

initial base offense level under § 2D1.1. We have recently held that a defendant

who was sentenced subject to a statutory mandatory minimum does not fall within

the scope of Amendment 706, in spite of any § 5K1.1 downward departure. United

States v. Williams, 549 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2008). Thus, because Maples’s

guideline range of mandatory life imprisonment was not reduced or otherwise

affected by Amendment 706, the district court had no basis to award a further

 Amendment 706, which became retroactive as of March 3, 2008, U.S.S.G. App. C, 1

Amend. 713 (Supp. May 1, 2008), reduced by two the base offense levels in crack cocaine

sentences calculated pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c).

2
reduction to his sentence, regardless of its prior substantial assistance departure.

2

Therefore, the district court erred as a matter of law in reducing Maples’s sentence

based on that amendment.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

 Maples urges on appeal that there is a distinction between the terms “guideline range” 2

and “guideline sentence,” but we have already explicitly rejected that linguistic argument in

Williams. 549 F.3d at 1340-41.

3
L.V. (BUD) McGUIRE

---

266 Promendade East, Montgomery, Texas 77356                Tel (936) 449-5874        Fax (936) 597-4281



Mr. Scott D. Josey
Chairman of the Board
Mariner Energy, Inc.
580 WestLake Park Blvd.Suite 1300
Houston, Texas  77079
Dear. Mr. Josey:
        Please accept my resignation, effective immediately, as a director of
Mariner Energy Inc and Mariner Energy LLC.  Enclosed are all of the Mariner board materials/papers that were in my possession.
        I have enjoyed my association with Mariner Energy and wish you and the Company continued success and prosperity.

| | Sincerely,       
| | -----------------
| | /s/ L. V. McGuire
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION * IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

OF MARYLAND • OF MARYLAND 

Petitioner • Misc. Docket AG 

• No. 18 

v. • September Term, 2016 

RICHARD WELLS MOORE, JR. • Circuit Court for Baltimore County 

• Case No. 03-C-16-007680 AG 

Respondent 

********************************************* 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of the Joint Petition for Disbarment by Consent filed herein pursuant 

to Maryland Rule 19-736, in which Respondent admits he committed professional misconduct in 

violation of Rules 1.1, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), and 1.15(a-e), 1.16(d), 8.1(b) and 8.4(a) and (d) of the 

Maryland Lawyers' Rules of Professional Conduct, which were the rules in effect at the time of 

this misconduct, it is this 6th day December, 2016, 

ORDERED, that Respondent, Richard Wells Moore, Jr. be and he is hereby disbarred 

from the practice of law in the State of Maryland; and it is further 

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Richard Wells Moore, Jr. 

from the register of attorneys in the Court, notify Respondent in accordance with Maryland Rule 

19-742(a), and issue notice of such action in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-761(b). 

/s/ Clayton Greene Jr. 

Senior Judge
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1383 CA 15-00880**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

ELDIN KOVACIC, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RALPH DELMONT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, CAITLIN BUTLER AND DAVID P. BUTLER, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. ARCHILLA, BUFFALO (MARK A. FORDEN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FEROLETO LAW, BUFFALO (JOEL P. FEROLETO OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

SCHNITTER CICCARELLI MILLS, PLLC, EAST AMHERST (BRITTANY A. NASRADINAJ OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Catherine R. Nugent Panepinto, J.), entered November 12, 2014. The order denied the motion of defendant Ralph Delmont for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint against defendant Ralph Delmont is dismissed.
Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when the vehicle operated by Ralph Delmont (defendant), in which plaintiff was a passenger, was rear-ended by a vehicle operated by defendant Caitlin Butler. We agree with defendant that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him. Defendant met his initial burden by establishing that he had brought his vehicle to a complete stop when it was rear-ended by the vehicle operated by Caitlin Butler ( see Zielinski v Van Pelt [appeal No. 2], 9 AD3d 874, 875-876; Ruzycki v Baker , 301 AD2d 48, 50). In opposition, plaintiff and the Butler defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see generally Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562). Contrary to their contentions, plaintiff consistently testified at his deposition that defendant had brought his vehicle to a complete stop at the time of the collision, and there are no issues of witness credibility that would preclude summary judgment. “ ‘The papers submitted by the plaintiff [and the Butler defendants] fail to show any [conduct by defendant] from which it could be inferred that any negligence on**-2- 1383 CA 15-00880** 
[defendant’s] part caused the . . . accident’ ” ( Zielinski , 9 AD3d at 875-876; see Nozine v Anurag , 38 AD3d 631, 631-632).

Entered: December 23, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Order entered December 5, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01008-CV

PROGRESSIVE CHILD CARE SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant/Cross-Appellee

V.

LEGACY VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, LEGACY VILLAGE ONE, L.L.C., 

SPY, INC. LEGACY VILLAGE ASSOCIATES, LTD., TEXAS FAMILY FITNESS 2 

LLC, SC LEGACY INDEPENDENCE, LTD., SC LEGACY INDEPENDENCE ONE, 

LLC, AND L&B REALTY ACQUISITIONS, LLC., Appellees/Cross-Appellants

On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 429-01220-2012

ORDER

Appellees/Cross-Appellants’ motion to strike the appellate brief filed by Spy, Inc. is 

hereby DENIED.

/s/ MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1
                                  CERTIFICATION
                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Capital Alliance Income Trust Ltd. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB-A for the period ending December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Richard J Wrensen, Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and
I, Andrea Barney, Principal Accounting Officer and Controller of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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


Date: November 12, 2008
                               /s/ Richard J. Wrensen
                               ----------------------
                               Richard J. Wrensen
                               President and Chief Executive Officer


                               /s/ Andrea Barney
                               -----------------
                               Andrea Barney
                               Principal Accounting Officer and Controller
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Joshua Ogle, * From the 244th District Court

of Ector County,

Trial Court No. C-139,276-C.

Vs. No. 11-16-00205-CV * November 30, 2016

Brenda Kay Johnson, Inc. and * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

Casey Equipment, Ltd., (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has considered the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this appeal and 

concludes that the motion should be granted. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this 

appeal are taxed against the party incurring same.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00064-CR

Ty Kealoha Eoff aka Ty Kegloha Eoff

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 372nd District Court

of Tarrant County (1415130D)

December 1, 2016

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
UASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Drive, Cocoa, FL 32926 (321)-261-2547 

uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.com

April 16, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Bldg. 10A

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

RE: Summary Grant for Elevated Horizons, LLC Exemption Request Under 

Section 333 of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and 

Reform Act of 2012, 49 U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11

Dear Sir or Madam:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA), 49 

U.S.C. § 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Elevated Horizons, LLC. (Elevated Horizons), 

an agricultural imaging service company and operator of small Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems (sUAS), seeks an exemption from the following listed Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) to allow commercial operation of the DJI Spreading Wings S1000

(S1000) within the National Airspace System (NAS) for controlled, low-risk, precision 

agricultural aerial mapping and surveying. 

Elevated Horizons, in the accompanying petition, seeks exemption from the requirements 

of 14 C.F.R. §§ 45.27(a), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.105, 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(b), 

91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2),and 91.417(a) and (b). 

Elevated Horizons has requested that the FAA not request public comment on its petition 

because it would not set any precedent and because the relief requested is identical to 

exemptions granted previously. 14 C.F.R. § 11.87. 

In addition, Elevated Horizons will be utilizing the same DJI proven technologies the FAA

has already accepted and approved for numerous other Section 333 exemptions. 

Moreover, Elevated Horizons provides an enhanced level of safety over other approved 

uses of DJI products in that, the proposed precision agriculture operations occur over 

specific remote fields in rural areas. 

Finally, Elevated Horizon’s package accompanying the Section 333 Petition for 

Exemption is robust, thorough, and comprehensive, and along with the published S1000

manuals, includes a Proprietary Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and Maintenance 
UASolutions Group, Inc. www.uasolutionsgroup.com

2518 Auburn Drive, Cocoa, FL 32926 (321)-261-2547 

uasolutionsgroup@uasolutionsgroup.com

Manual. 

All of the appropriate documentation to accompany Elevated Horizons Section 333 

Petition is included. Combined, this comprehensive package, and the approvals the FAA 

has already given to DJI products and the technology, should provide the support 

necessary to the FAA for a Summary Grant of Elevated Horizons Section 333 Petition

and expedite the process. 

Kelly J. Neubecker

CEO

UASolutions Group, Inc.

CC:

Jim Williams

Joe Morra

Jake Troutman

Dean Griffith, Esq.

Robert Papas
# C_2016269EN.01002001.xml

| 23.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/20

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8100 — IK/Five Arrows/I@D)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 269/02)

On 15 July 2016, 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 32016M8100. 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 32016M8100. 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 60 (Monday, March 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 16670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07163]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Filings Instituting Proceedings
    Docket Numbers: PR15-30-000.
    Applicants: Enbridge Pipelines (Oklahoma Trasmission) L.L.C.
    Description: Submits tariff filing per 284.123(b)(2) + (g): Revised 
SOC--No Rate Change to be effective 3/18/2015; Filing Type: 1310.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5054.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/15. 284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 
5/18/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-654-000.
    Applicants: Northwest Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: RM14-21--Map Compliance 
Filing to be effective 4/17/2015.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5203.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/15.

    Docket Numbers: RP15-655-000.
    Applicants: Union Power Partners, L.P.
    Description: Joint Petition for Limited Waiver of Union Power 
Partners, L.P., Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, 
L.L.C., and Entergy Texas, Inc.
    Filed Date: 3/17/15.
    Accession Number: 20150317-5225.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/30/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by 
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, 
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: March 18, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-07163 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```