alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-16-00396-CV

_________________

IN RE ALLEN F. CALTON

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

58th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A-198,064

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Allen F. Calton is a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order. See Tex. 

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.102(a) (West Supp. 2016). On November 9, 

2016, we notified the parties that this mandamus proceeding would be dismissed 

unless the local administrative judge granted permission to file. See id. § 11.1035. 

Calton did not file a response. The mandamus proceeding is dismissed. See id. 

PETITION DISMISSED. 

PER CURIAM
2

Submitted on December 7, 2016

Opinion Delivered December 8, 2016

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
#### THOMAS ROSE et al., *Plaintiffs in Error, vs.*THOMAS D. BARR, *Defendant in Error.*

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OE JEFFERSON COUNTY.

Rnle 16 of the Circuit Court in relation to the tailing of inquests at the circuit, applies only to cases in which there is an issue of fact.

An inquest taken at the circuit, where judgment has been entered by default, as for want of a plea upon notice, as prescribed by Rule 16, is irregular.

Where the defendant has appeared in a cause, he will be entitled to notice, according to the provisions of Rule 13, of other proceedings.

Tlie facts in this case, so far as they relate to the judgment of the court, are fully stated in the opinion.

*D.*JSfoggle, for plaintiffs in error.

*tí. JS.*Holmes, for defendant in error.

*By the Court,*

Smith, J.

The rendition and entry of judgment in this case are clearly irregular. The cause was not at issue so as to fall under Eule 16 of the Circuit Court, in relation to the taking of inquests at the circuit, and hence the notice of trial and inquest, served April *17,*1852, is not applicable to -a proceeding of this kind. Eule 16 provides that “Inquests in causes where there are issues in fact, may be taken at the Circuit Courts out of their order on the calendar at the opening of the court, on any day after the first day of the circuit, or at such time as shall be prescribed by the presiding judge at the opening of the term ; provided, the intention to take an inquest is expressed in the notice of trial, and a sufficient affidavit of merits shall not have been filed and served ; *493and when an inquest shall have been regularly taken, the same shall not be set aside except upon the payment of the.costs thereof.”

The plaintiff commenced his proceedings by attachment. The defendants, in pursuance of the statute, traversed the affidavit, and upon the hearing, the court found for them, and gave judgment for six cents damages. The defendants then interposed what they denominated a plea in abatement, for misjoinder of parties defendant. Previous to the April term the plaintiff gave notice of trial and inquest in the usual form. At the April term the defendant’s plea was stricken from the files. The plaintiff then proceeded to empannel a jury to assess the damages, in the absence of the defendants and their counsel, and without having given any notice of such inquest, except the usual notice of trial &c., which, it seems, did not warrant such proceeding.

Even admitting that the cause was in a condition for an assessment by the clerk, of damages, or a writ of inquiry, yet, inasmuch as the defendants had appeared in the cause, they were entitled to notice according to the provisions of the thirteenth rule of practice in the Circuit Court.

• It is probable that in the hurry of circuit practice, a wider scope was given to Rule 16 than its framers intended, and than its language will justify, and thus the counsel for the plaintiff was led into error.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings, according to law.
<PAGE>

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


       KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes
and appoints George L. Lippe, Robert E. Sulentic, Derek R. McClain and William
P. Leiser the true and lawful attorney-in-fact, with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to
sign on his behalf, as a director or officer, or both, as the case may be, of
Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the
Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999,
and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same,
with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorney or
attorney-in-fact, each of them with or without the others, full power and
authority to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and
purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming
all that said attorney or attorneys-in-fact or any of them or their substitute
or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.



                                        /s/ Rowland T. Moriarty
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       Rowland T. Moriarty
March 4, 2015 

BY FACSIMILE 

Mr. Paul Gretch 

Director 

Office 

des transports 

du Canada 

Office of International Aviation 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

X40, suite 6402 

400 7th Street S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Dear Mr. Gretch 

Reference: OST 2006-24269 

Canadian 

Transportation 

Agency 

M4820-U5-19 

This letter confirms that the Canadian Transportation Agency considers applications by United 

States air carriers for approval to operate charters to and from Canada, including charters 

between Canada and third countries, in accordance with the provisions of the Air Transport 

Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, signed March 12, 2007 

(Agreement). In addition, as established in the Agreement, charter services not specified in the 

Annex to that Agreement, are considered on the basis of comity and reciprocity. 

~l:J~JQ Manager International Agreements 

cc Bruce Christie, ANA 

Marc Rioux, ACEA. 

Brian Hedberg, US DoT 

Ottawa (Ontario) K1A ON9 

www.cta-otc.gc.ca 

Canada 

Ottawa Ontario K1 A ON9 

www.cta-otc.gc.ca
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2777 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2777

   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to authorize the 
 Secretary of Health and Human Services to make adjustments to payment 
  rates for skilled nursing facilities under the Medicare program to 
               account for certain unique circumstances.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2021

 Mr. Schatz (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Ms. Hirono, and Mr. Sullivan) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to authorize the 
 Secretary of Health and Human Services to make adjustments to payment 
  rates for skilled nursing facilities under the Medicare program to 
               account for certain unique circumstances.

    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 ``Equitable Payments for Nursing 
Facilities Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZING THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES TO MAKE 
              ADJUSTMENTS TO PAYMENT RATES FOR SKILLED NURSING 
              FACILITIES UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM TO ACCOUNT FOR 
              CERTAIN UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES.

    Section 1888(e)(4)(G) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395yy(e)(4)(G)) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
clause:
                            ``(iv) Adjustment for unique 
                        circumstances.--The Secretary may provide for 
                        such adjustments as determined appropriate by 
                        the Secretary to take into account the unique 
                        circumstances of skilled nursing facilities 
                        located in Alaska or Hawaii.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners v. Saunders

*796
      *Susan L. Anderson,*for plaintiff.

August 17, 1978

GEISZ, J.,

On August 11, 1978, plaintiff petitioned this court for an order directing the prothonotary to accept for fifing a writ of fraudulent debtor’s attachment against defendant without a bond. At that time the court orally granted plaintiff’s request and the writ was immediately filed. A written order in confirmation of the oral decree was entered on August 14, 1978.

The sole issue under consideration is whether plaintiff may commence a fraudulent debtor’s attachment without fifing an accompanying bond as is normally required by Pa.R.C.P. 1287(b), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §1287 et seq. In Com. v. Kile, 16 D. & C. 2d 47 (1958), where the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare filed such a writ against a delinquent welfare recepient, the court held that where the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania acts as plaintiff, it is absolved from filing any bond or security under authority of the Act of July 7, 1919, P.L. 731, 12 P.S. §145. The court futher noted that this act is not affected or suspended by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

As an agency of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners *797clearly can be deemed to serve as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in this action and is therefore not required to file a bond.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: C.A.Y., A MINOR

PETITION OF: R.Y., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 51 EAL 2015

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
Premanufacture Notice (PMN) for P

- 0 5

- 0 774

A pubic copy of the sanitized PMN for these substances is not available.

For further information on obtaining a copy of this document
contact:

Kenneth Moss, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460

- 0001

Telephone: 202

- 564

- 9232

Email: Moss.Kenneth@epa.gov
| (i)    |   | the Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                             |
| (ii)   |   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                             |

| Date: December 19, 2012 | /s/ SHELLY SCHAFFER           |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                    | Shelly Schaffer               |
|                    | Chief Financial Officer and   |
|                    | Executive Vice President      |
|                    | of Finance and Administration |

| (1) |   | The material contained in this Exhibit 32.2 is not deemed “filed” with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether made before or after the date hereof and irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference. |
|-----|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

Nos. 04-16-00582-CR & 04-16-00583-CR

Eliezer CRUZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court Nos. 2016CR4935 & 2015CR9345

Honorable Melisa Skinner, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, these appeals are DISMISSED.

SIGNED December 7, 2016.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d byN i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). 11- 17194 NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T RONA LD W HI TM I RE , P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. G A RY G RA H A M a n dR. BA N N I STER, D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 17194 D . C. N o . 3 : 1 1 - c v - 0 0 5 0 2 - ECRV PC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da E dw a r d C . R e e d, J r . , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d Jul y17, 2012 ** B efo re: S C H R O E D E R , T H O M A S , an dS IL V E R M A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. N evada s t at e pri soner R on al d W hi tm i re appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g th a t d e f e n d a n ts w e r e de l i be r a t e l yi ndi f

f e r e ntt o hi s s e r i ous m e di c a l ne e ds . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on 

# FI LED JU L 20 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 17194 2 unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l unde r28 U . S . C . § 1915A , butw e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on i t s de c i s i on t o do s o w i thout le a v e to a m e n d . L o

p ezv . Sm ith , 2 0 3 F .3 d1 1 2 2 , 1 1 3 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( e n b a n c ) . W e a f f irm in p a rt, an dv a c a te a n dr e m a n din p a rt. T h e d istrict co u rt p ro p er ly d ism isse dw ith o u t l ea v e to am en dW h itm ire’s c o m p la in t a g a in s t th e m e d ic a l s ta f f w h o tr e a te dh im b e c au s e h is a lle g a tio n s f a il to s ta te ac la im f

o rd e lib e r ate in d if

f e r e n c e a n da m e n d m e n t ap p e a r s f u tile . See T oguc hiv . Chung , 3 9 1 F .3 d1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( m e r e n e g lig e n c e in di agno si ng or tre at i ng a m edi ca l cond i t i on , w i tho utm ore, do es no tvi ol at e a p r is o n e r ’s E ig h th A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts ) ; see a l so W ei lb u rgv. Sh a

p i ro , 488 F . 3d 12 02 , 12 05 (9th C i r. 20 07 ) ( “ D i sm i ss alof a pro se c o m p la in t w ith o u t le a v e to a m e nd i s pr ope ronl yi f

i ti s abs ol ut e l yc l e a rtha tthe de f i c i e nc i e s of

the c om pl a i nt c o u ldn o t b e c u r e db ya m e n d m e n t.” ) . Th e d i s tr i c tc o u rt , h o w e v e r , p r e ma tu r e l yd i s mi s s e dW h i tmi r e ’ s c l a i ms a ga i ns tthe r e m a i ni ng de f e nda nt s w i thoutf

i r s tpr ovi di ng hi m w i th not i c e of the d e f ic ie n c ie s a n da n o p p o rtu n ityto a m e n d . See W ei lb u rg , 488 F . 3d a t1205. W h itm ir e s h a ll b e a rh is o w n c o s ts o n ap p e a l. A F F IR M E D i n p art; V A C A T E D an d R E M A N D E D i n p art.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IFREEDOM DIRECT CORPORATION, a

Utah corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

PETER MCCORMICK, an individual;

VETERANS FIRST REAL ESTATE

AND MORTGAGE COMPANY, a

California corporation, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-55877

D.C. No. 

8:16-cv-00470-JLS-KES

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 5, 2016** 

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, D.W. NELSON, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

FILED

DEC 08 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).
iFreedom Direct Corporation (iFreedom) appeals the district court’s order

denying its motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court denied the

preliminary injunction because iFreedom failed to show a likelihood of irreparable

harm. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Reviewing for abuse of

discretion, we affirm. Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Florida Entm’t Mgmt., Inc., 736

F.3d 1239, 1247 (9th Cir. 2013). 

The district court found that iFreedom’s ten-month delay in seeking a

preliminary injunction undermined its claim of irreparable harm. This finding was

not “illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that may be drawn

from the facts in the record.” Id. (quoting United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d

1247, 1263 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc)). One could infer from the record that

iFreedom was likely to enter the California market around the time it sent Peter

McCormick the cease and desist letter that complained that his use was “likely to

lead to confusion among consumers and the public” and also alleged “violation[s]

of state and federal . . . trademark law.” 

Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded

that the evidence iFreedom submitted to show a likelihood of irreparable

harm—primarily the declaration of a mortgage industry expert—was too

2
speculative. The expert’s declaration failed to show that harm is likely to occur or

that traditional remedies, like monetary damages, are inadequate. Id. at 1250. 

AFFIRMED. 

3
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Notice of RTCA Charter renewal.

# SUMMARY:

The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the renewal of the RTCA Charter (FAA Order 1110.77V) for two years, effective April 1, 2015. The administrator is the sponsor of the committee. The FAA and seven other government agencies use RTCA as a federal advisory committee. On January 2, 1976, the FAA, the major government user of RTCA products, assumed sponsorship on behalf of all government agencies. RTCA brings together representatives of the government and industry to form special committees and steering committees to provide advice and recommendations on key operational and technological issues that impact the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) implementation and the Air Traffic Management System. The Secretary of Transportation has determined that that information and use of committee are necessary in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the FAA by law.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-9339, fax at (202) 833-9434, or Web site at                         *http://www.rtca.org*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Steering Committee and Special Committee meetings are open to the public and announced in the                     **Federal Register**                    , except as authorized by Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.                

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 1, 2015.

Mohannad Dawoud,

Management Analyst, Program Oversight and Administration, ANG-A15, Federal Aviation Administration.

[FR Doc. 2015-07854 Filed 4-3-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Exhibit 23

                       Consent of Independent Auditors' Report

The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Odd Job Stores, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No.
333-32275 on Form S-8 of Odd Job Stores, Inc. of our report dated March 7, 2003,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Odd Job Stores, Inc. and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and February 2, 2002, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for
the eleven months ended December 31, 2002 and the fiscal years ended February 2,
2002 and February 3, 2001, which report appears in the December 31, 2002 Form
10-K of Odd Job Stores, Inc. Our report refers to changes in the method of
accounting in 2002 for goodwill and other intangible assets.


Cleveland, Ohio
March 24, 2003