alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued December 6, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-16-00374-CV

———————————

EDWARD G. RIZK, Appellant

V.

J. CARY GRAY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR 

AND PRESIDENT OF RIZK INTEREST, LTD., AND RIZK INTEREST, 

LTD., Appellees

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 408941

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from an order signed April 5, 2016, denying 

Edward G. Rizk’s motion to recuse. Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, 

we dismiss.
2

Edward G. Rizk filed a motion to recuse Judge Loyd Wright. Judge Wright 

declined to recuse himself and referred the motion to the Honorable Guy Herman, 

Presiding Judge of the Statutory Probate Courts, for assignment of a judge to hear 

the motion. The Honorable Gladys Burwell was appointed and denied the motion 

by order signed April 5, 2016.

An appellate court lacks jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders 

unless a statute provides for an appeal. See Guilbot v. de Gonzalez, 367 S.W.3d 442, 

447 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied). No statute provides for 

appeal of an interlocutory order denying a motion to recuse, and therefore, it is 

appealable only on appeal of the final judgment. See id.; Joannides v. Joannides, 

No. 01–13–00090–CV, 2013 WL 1222584, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

Mar. 26, 2013, no pet.). Because the record indicates no final judgment has been 

signed, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. 

We dismiss the appeal. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Massengale, Brown, and Huddle.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2886 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2886

 To amend title 54, United States Code, to authorize the donation and 
  distribution of capes, horns, and antlers from wildlife management 
          activities carried out on National Park System land.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 29, 2021

 Mr. Barrasso introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 54, United States Code, to authorize the donation and 
  distribution of capes, horns, and antlers from wildlife management 
          activities carried out on National Park System land.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Cape and Antler Preservation 
Enhancement Act'' or the ``CAPE Act''.

SEC. 2. DONATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF MEAT, CAPES, HORNS, AND ANTLERS 
              FROM WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ON NATIONAL PARK 
              SYSTEM LAND.

    Section 104909(c) of title 54, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``, capes, hides, horns, and antlers'' 
        after ``distribution of meat'';
            (2) by striking ``food banks, and other organizations'' and 
        inserting ``and, in the case of meat, food banks and other 
        organizations''; and
            (3) by inserting ``, including giving priority 
        consideration to qualified volunteers that participated in the 
        wildlife management activity'' after ``may require''.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2016155EN.01000101.xml

| 30.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 155/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7871 — Bombardier/CDPQ/Bombardier Transportation UK)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 155/01)

On 29 January 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 the 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 32016M7871. 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 32016M7871. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
# C_2016118EN.01000101.xml

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/1

---

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 118/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 111, 29.3.2016

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 106, 21.3.2016

OJ C 98, 14.3.2016

OJ C 90, 7.3.2016

OJ C 78, 29.2.2016

OJ C 68, 22.2.2016

OJ C 59, 15.2.2016

These texts are available on:

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

---
#### Jackson, *ex*dem. Dackstader, *against*King and Neilson.

The Court refused to grant an attachment for costs on a judgment of nonsuit against an *Oneida*In* *dian,*who was the lessor of the plantiff in an action of eject-grantedUa lule t0 íow..cau6e on the attorney the°suitbnotlet ing the agent or pointed7by *tie*the*6 SSr"3 of the Indians, why an attachment should not issue against him.

*CADY,*for the defendants, moved for an attachment *t*against the lessor of the plaintiff, an *Oneida*Indian, for 0 . . *c ■*costs on a judgment ot nonsuit,

*c9i?*Contra.

*^ie Court*said, that they could not grant an attachment against the *Indian;*hut as the suit had been brought by an ° ° *J*a^orney> w^° was n°t an agent or attorney appointed by the state to manage the affairs of the *Indians,*they granted a rule on the attorney of the plaintiff, to show cause why an attachment should not issue against him.
Exhibit 32.1
                                  ------------

              Commodore Environmental Services, Inc. & Subsidiaries
                    Certification Of Chief Executive Officer
           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  Commodore   Separation
Technologies,  Inc. (the  "Company") on form 10-KSB for the year ended  December
31, 2003, Paul Hannesson hereby certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,
as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to
the best of his knowledge:

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

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

Date:    March 29, 2004


/s/ Paul Hannesson
------------------
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
M A N D A T E

TO THE 329TH DISTRICT COURT OF WHARTON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 2nd day of

September, 2016, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Timothy Ray Grant, Appellant,

v.

Andrea Elease Myers, Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-16-00338-CV (Tr.Ct.No. FM48186)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 7th day of December, 2016.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK

FILE COPY
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Richard Turner, Appellant

No. 06-15-00220-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 102nd District Court of 

Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 13F0312-

102). Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, 

Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess

participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment 

of the court below. Therefore, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that Richard Turner 

was convicted of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit aggravated assault. As modified, 

the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We further order that the appellant, Richard Turner, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED DECEMBER 2, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2857 

To prohibit any Federal agency from requiring financial institutions to report 

on the financial transactions of their customers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 27, 2021 

Mr. TUBERVILLE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit any Federal agency from requiring financial institutions to report on the financial transactions of their 

customers. 

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 ‘‘Protecting Financial 

5 Privacy Act of 2021’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2857 IS

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING FEDERAL AGENCIES FROM REQUIR2 ING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS TO REPORT 

3 ON FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS OF CUS4 TOMERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the Bank Se6 crecy Act or any regulations promulgated under such Act 

7 (as in effect on September 1, 2021), no Federal agency 

8 (including the Department of the Treasury) shall be per9 mitted to create, implement, or administer any financial 

10 account information reporting program that would require 

11 financial institutions or individuals to report data on fi12 nancial accounts in an information return listing balances, 

13 transactions, transfers, or inflows or outflows of any kind. 

14 (b) BANK SECRECY ACT.—The term ‘‘Bank Secrecy 

15 Act’’ means— 

16 (1) section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance 

17 Act (12 U.S.C. 1829b), 

18 (2) chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91–508 

19 (12 U.S.C. 1951 et seq.), and 

20 (3) subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, 

21 United States Code. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Christopher Jenkins, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Gilbert C. Hong, J.), rendered May 27, 2015, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of attempted assault in the third degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Gilbert C. Hong, J.), rendered May 27, 2015, affirmed.</p><p>The verdict convicting defendant of attempted assault in the third degree (<i>see</i> Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.00[1]) was supported by legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence (<i>see People v Danielson</i>, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis upon which to disturb the trial court's determinations concerning credibility. Defendant's intent to cause physical injury could be readily inferred from his act of throwing a punch in the direction of the police officer's face and then punching the officer in the stomach (Penal Law 120.00[1]; <a href="../2009/2009_02825.htm" target="_blank"><i>Matter of Edward H</i>., 61 AD3d 473</a>, 473 [2009]). "The fact that the officer managed to avoid physical injury [to his face] does not preclude a finding that [defendant] attempted to inflict such injury" (<i>see Matter of Marcel F.</i>, 233 AD2d 442, 442-443 [1996]). Nor did defendant's struggle to avoid apprehension negate a finding that he acted with the requisite injurious intent (<i>see People v Waite</i>, 2002 NY Slip Op 50260[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2002], <i>lv denied </i>99 NY2d 540 [2002]).</p><p>Defendant's claim that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish that he came dangerously close to causing physical injury is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. The factfinder could infer that defendant's first punch, which narrowly missed the officer's face because of his evasive action, came dangerously close to causing physical injury (<i>see</i> Penal Law § 110.00; <i>People v Bracey</i>, 41 NY2d 296, 300 [1977]; <i>Matter of Charles C.</i>, 309 AD2d 516, 517 [2003]; <i>see also </i>Penal Law</p><br>§ 10.00[9]).<p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: November 29, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Devany, Dennis (OST) 

. From: J. Derek Allan [dallan@together.net] DEPT 

Sent: ,sunday, February 14, 20102:12 PM 

To: 'Devany, Dennis (OST) 

Subject: cape air 

"'" We, the undersigned, are experienced travelers. We strongly disagree with the recent decision of the Clinton County 

. Legislature·to deny Cape Air as an EAS provider at Plattsburgh, New York. 

Cape Air has provided affordable and safe service since its inception at Plattsburgh. Replacing the service with a carrier 

that has a questionable safety record, increased cost of travel and less frequent service. is aspeculative and ill-advised 

move, encouraged by legis/.ative lobbyists and bUsiness interests. . . 

Please keep Cape Air as our carrier at Plattsburgh and put safety firsf. 

James Derek Allan &Helen W. Allan 

1
Unassociated Document


Exhibit 10.3


 
 



	 
GC Barnes Group, LLC







 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties execute this Agreement as of the date set forth above.


 



	
RVPIus, Inc., Holding Company


of ECCO2 Tech


 


2500 Plaza 5 25th Floor 


Harborside Financial Center 


Jersey City, NJ 07311

	
GC BARNES GROUP, LLC


 


 


10 G Street NE Suite 710 


Washington, DC. 20002







 




	By:	/s/ Cary Lee Peterson	 	By:  	/s/ Greg Barnes	 
	Name:   	
Cary Lee Peterson

	 	 
Name:  

	
Greg Barnes

	 
	Title: 	
 
Chairman-CEO



	 	Title:	
Managing Member

	 
	Date:	 
22 April 2013

	 	Date:	
4-22-2013

	 







 


April 22, 2013


 


CONSULTANT AND ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT


Page 5 of 5


 


GC Barnes Group, LLC Proprietary and Confidential
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2945 

To include sexual assault and aggravated sexual violence in the definition 

of aggravated felonies under the Immigration and Nationality Act in 

order to expedite the removal of aliens convicted of such crimes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 6, 2021 

Ms. ERNST (for herself, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. TILLIS, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. 

CRAMER, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. 

COTTON, Mr. LANKFORD, Mr. LEE, Ms. LUMMIS, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. 

HOEVEN, Mrs. CAPITO, and Mr. BOOZMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To include sexual assault and aggravated sexual violence 

in the definition of aggravated felonies under the Immigration and Nationality Act in order to expedite the 

removal of aliens convicted of such crimes. 

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 TITLES. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Better Enforcement 

5 of Grievous Offenses by unNaturalized Emigrants’’ or the 

6 ‘‘BE GONE Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2945 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF AGGRAVATED 

2 FELONIES UNDER THE IMMIGRATION AND 

3 NATIONALITY ACT. 

4 Section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nation5 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)) is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (T), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

7 the end; 

8 (2) in subparagraph (U), by striking the period 

9 at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(V) sexual assault and aggravated sexual vio12 lence.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES NAVY–MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

_________________________

No. 201600269

_________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v.

TAYLOR L. STRICKLAND

Seaman (E-1), U.S. Navy

Appellant

_________________________

Appeal from the United States Navy-Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Lieutenant Colonel David M. Jones, USMC.

For Appellant: Lieutenant Commander Paul D. Jenkins, JAGC, USN.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________

Decided 29 November 2016

_________________________

Before MARKS, GLASER-ALLEN and BELSKY, Appellate Military Judges

_________________________

After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of 

error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening 

authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c). 

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-K Annual Report of Eldorado Resorts LLC and Eldorado Capital Corp. (collectively, the
"Company") for the year ended December 31, 2002 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Dated: March 27, 2003 |  | By: | /s/DONALD L. CARANODonald L. Carano,
Chief Executive Officer of Eldorado
Resorts LLC and Eldorado Capital Corp.
|--------------------- |  | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |     |                                                                                                                

---

QuickLinks
#### Hannah Alexander, Admx. of William Alexander, deceased, Resp’t *v.*Emma A. Sumner, Appl’t.1

*(Court of Appeals,*

*Filed January*18, 1887.)

Accounting — Reference — Evidence—Improper allowance.

In an action before a referee for money loaned and expended on behalf of defendant, it is error to credit plaintiff with an item which had previously been allowed him as a counter claim in an action wherein he was defendant and the present defendant’s husband was plaintiff.

Appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department, affirming a judgment entered in Kings county on the report of a referee in favor of plaintiff.

The action was for money loaned and services rendered. The plaintiff admitted certain credits and the defendant alleged that the plaintiff had received conveyances of land which were of value more than sufficient to pay the loans and asked an accounting. The case was sent to a referee and on the trial *528there was evidence tending to show that an item of $122.50 which was claimed by Alexander as a credit for interest paid on a certain mortgage was also claimed by Alexander the testator as a counter claim and allowed in a previous action brought by P. H. Sumner (the husband of defendant) against him. In stating the account herein the referee credited Alexander with this item.

*William W*Badger, for appl’t; *J. T.*Marean, for resp’t.

1

 Reversing 39 Hun. 656*mem.*

Per Curiam.

We think the case shows that the item of 1122.50, with interest from November 19, 1877, credited by the referee to the plaintiff’s intestate, for interest paid by him at that date on the Philips mortgage, was charged and allowed in the prior action brought by the defendant’s husband against, the intestate, as a counter claim in that action. It should not, therefore, have been allowed again in this action. With this exception we think the findings of the referee were justified by the evidence, or, at least, that there was not such an absence of evidence in respect to any of them that this court can interfere with his conclusion. An order should be entered reversing the judgment and directing a new trial, with costs to abide the event, unless the plaintiff stipulates to deduct therefrom the credit of $122.50, and interest, and the costs embraced therein, and to pay the costs of the appeal to this court, in which case the judgment, as modified, is affirmed, without costs to the plaintiff.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.