alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### NUMBER 13
- 10
- 00 230
- CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF M.M.A., A JUVENILE

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the Juvenile Court of Bee County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam This case is before the Court on appellant’s “Notice that Case May be Moot.” M.M.A., a juvenile, appeals from an order modifying his disposition and committing him
in to the custody of the Texas Youth Commission. We hold that M.M.A.’s appeal is moot, and therefore, we dismiss the appeal.
A case becomes moot “when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Murphy v. Hunt , 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982). M.M.A. was released from custody of the Texas Youth Commission on April2

14, 2011, was released from all post

- commitment supervision in this case on December 16, 2011, and turned eighteen years of age on March 18, 2012. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE
A NN

. § 54.05(b) (Vernon 2002) (all dispositions automatically terminate when the child reaches his eighteenth birthday). When a cause becomes moot, an appellate court must dismiss the cause, not just the appeal. City of Garland v. Louton , 691 S.W.2d 60 3, 605 (Tex. 1985)

. The Court, having considered the appellate record and the appellant = s “Notice that Case May be Moot,” dismiss es this cause as moot.

PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 19th day of July , 20 12

.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 610 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 610

 To provide for the rescheduling of marijuana into schedule III of the 
                       Controlled Substances Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 27, 2023

  Mr. Steube introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 
   the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
  Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 
           within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the rescheduling of marijuana into schedule III of the 
                       Controlled Substances Act.

    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 ``Marijuana 1-to-3 Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. RESCHEDULING OF MARIJUANA.

    Notwithstanding section 201 and subsections (a) and (b) of section 
202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811, 812) respecting 
the scheduling of controlled substances, the Attorney General of the 
United States shall, by order not later than 60 days after the date of 
enactment of this section, transfer marijuana (for purposes of this Act 
given the same meaning given the term ``marihuana'' in section 102 of 
such Act) from schedule I of such Act to schedule III of such Act.
                                 <all>
```
From: Rahul Pendse [RPendse@trinityconsultants.com]

Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 4:29 PM

To: Land, Eva

Subject: RE: Lost Email

Attachments: Appendix F Drilling Scenario Revised 090513.pdf

Eva,

Please find attached the Revised Appendix F (June 2013 application addendum) per our discussion. The 

revisions are highlighted in red color. The revisions are associated with correcting the annual operating 

hours for wireline engines and minor calculation edits. Please confirm the receipt of this email and let 

me know if I could be of help.

................................................................................................................

Rahul Pendse

Managing Consultant

Trinity Consultants – Baton Rouge

301 Main Street, Suite 900 | Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825

Office: 225-346-4003 | Mobile: 714-454-0518

Email: rpendse@trinityconsultants.com

From: Land, Eva [mailto:Land.Eva@epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 7:30 AM

To: Rahul Pendse

Subject: RE: Lost Email

Great, thank you. I will be out of the office at the end of the week, but I will let you know as soon as I get 

a chance to look through it.

Eva Land

Air Permits Section

EPA - Region 4

61 Forsyth St., SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: 404-562-9103

From: Rahul Pendse [mailto:RPendse@trinityconsultants.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 9:58 PM

To: Land, Eva

Subject: RE: Lost Email

Hello Eva,
My apologies. I am travelling until tomorrow and I should be back in the office on Thursday. I will 

provide it to you as soon as I get back to the office. Please let me know if it is acceptable. Thanks!

................................................................................................................

Rahul Pendse

Managing Consultant

Trinity Consultants – Baton Rouge

301 Main Street, Suite 900 | Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70825

Office: 225-346-4003 | Mobile: 714-454-0518

Email: rpendse@trinityconsultants.com

From: Land, Eva [mailto:Land.Eva@epa.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 4:10 PM

To: Rahul Pendse

Subject: Lost Email

Rahul,

Just to follow up from our conversation last week, I still don’t see the email that you mentioned was 

sent. If you wouldn’t mind resending it I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Eva Land

Air Permits Section

EPA - Region 4

61 Forsyth St., SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

Phone: 404-562-9103

_________________________________________________________________________

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to

which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged

material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or

taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or

entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you

Received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material 

from any computer.

_________________________________________________________________________
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jamie Lynn TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11425 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern *155District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jamie Lynn Tucker, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Jamie Lynn Tucker has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Tucker has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is ' excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Brenda UGARTE, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-50313 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 20, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Brenda Ugarte, Pro Se

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Brenda Ugarte has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in ' accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Ugarte has not filed a response. We have reviewed-counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir, R. 47,5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in *5m Cir.*R. 47.5.4.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

December 3, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-11356

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00180-CR-ORL-22-DAB

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERSKINE JERMAINE FLORENCE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(December 3, 2008)

Before ANDERSON, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Clarence W. Counts, Jr., appointed counsel for Erskine Jermaine Florence,
has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a

brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d

493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals counsel’s

assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent

examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s

motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Florence’s sentence is AFFIRMED.

2
Juana PIÑA, Appellant, v. Adria DE LA NOVAL, Appellee.

No. 3D17-1361

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed May 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit
      32.2








Certification
      Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as Adopted Pursuant to


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








In
      connection with the Annual Report of Natural Gas Services Group,
      Inc.  (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,
      2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,
      Earl R. Wait, the Vice President – Accounting (Principal Financial Officer) of
      the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.           The
      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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.











**Natural
              Gas Services
              Group, Inc.**Date: 
June
                8, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Earl
              R. WaitEarl
              R. WaitVice
              President-Accounting(Principal
              Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Thomas J. Baldwin, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-Q of Morton’s Restaurant Group, Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  November 15, 2004 |
|--------------------------|
|                     |
|                     | /s/ THOMAS  J. BALDWIN |   |
|                     | Thomas J.  Baldwin |
|                     | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
#### Efrain RODRIGUEZ-NAVA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73524

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted August 9, 2017 *

Filed August 14, 2017

Jose Ivan Vargas, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Ivan Vargas, Panorama City, CA, for Petitioner

Matthew Albert Connelly, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Jus*249tice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),

MEMORANDUM **

Efrain Rodriguez-Nava, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, *Cerezo v. Mukasey,*612 F.3d 1163, 1166 (9th Cir. 2008), except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s determination of the governing statutes and regulations, *Simeonov v. Ashcroft,*371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. *Zehatye v. Gonzales,*453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We deny the petition for review.

The agency did not err in finding Rodriguez-Nava failed to establish a cognizable social group. *See Ramirez-Munoz v. Lynch,*816 F.3d 1226, 1228-29 (9th Cir. 2016); *see also Reyes v. Lynch,*842 F.3d 1125, 1133-37 (9th Cir. 2016) (according deference to the BIA’s articulation of its “particularity” and “social distinction” requirements). Thus, Rodriguez-Nava’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. In light of this conclusion, we do not reach Rodriguez-Nava’s remaining contentions raised in his opening brief.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[ DO NOT PUBLISH] 

## In the 

# United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________
No. 23

- 13172

Non

- Argument Calendar

____________________

In re: SEAWALK INVESTM EN TS, LLC

Debtor.

_______________________________________________

SKY ENTERPRISES, LLC,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus SEAWALK INVESTMENTS, LLC,

Defendant

- Appellee. USCA11 Case: 23-13172 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2024 Page: 1 of 32 Opinion of the Court 23

- 13172

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:21

- cv

- 01148

- TJC

____________________
Before W ILSON , J ILL P RYOR , and G RANT , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Sky Enterprises, LLC (“Sky”) appeals from the district court’s August 29, 2023 order , which affirm ed several bankruptcy

court rulings but remand ed for further consideration of the amount of attorney’s fees to which Sky is entitled as part of its secured claim. We asked the parties to address whether we have jurisdiction to review that order. Upon our review of the record and the response to our jurisdictional question, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. We conclude that the pending attorney’s fees issue is notcollateral to the underlying bankruptcy dispute and is instead intertwined with the mer its. The bankruptcy court did not award attorney’s fees to Sky as a sanction; instead, Sky’s entitlement to attorney’s fees arises from the mortgage and promissory note that formed the basis of its secured claim. A change in the attorney’s fees amount wi ll thus affect the value of the claim, which was an essential merits issue resolved by the bankruptcy court. Accordingly, the district court’s August 29, 2023 order did not “[end] the litigation on the merits and [leave] nothing for the USCA11 Case: 23-13172 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2024 Page: 2 of 323

- 13172 Opinion of the Court 3

court to do but e xecute the judgment. ” See M ich. State Univ. v. Asbestos Settlement Tr. (In re Celotex Corp.) , 700 F.3d 1262, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012). Nor did the order leave only a “ministerial duty collateral to the merits of the action” for the bankruptcy court to perfo rm on remand. See Miscott Corp. v. Zaremba Walden Co. (In re Miscott Corp.) , 848 F.2d 1190, 1193 (11th Cir. 1988). We thus lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). USCA11 Case: 23-13172 Document: 24-1 Date Filed: 04/23/2024 Page: 3 of 3
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Homero MALACARA-AGUILAR, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40369 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Date Filed: 12/20/2016

*910Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Homero Malacara-Aguilar, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Homero Malacara-Aguilar has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Malacara-Aguilar has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that, this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Byron Leroy SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 13-55950

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed March 15, 2017

Jelani Jimmy Lindsey, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender, Riverside, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant

Matthew Mulford, Attorney, Kevin Vienna, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA—Office of the Attorney General (San Diego), San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Byron Leroy Scott appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as an unauthorized second or successive petition. Scott contends that the district court erred because his Eighth Amendment challenge to his sentence did not become ripe until the Supreme Court announced its decision in *Miller v. Alabama,*567 U.S. 460, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012). He requests, in the alternative, that this court treat his opening brief as an application to file a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). We grant this request.

Scott’s opening brief, treated as an application for authorization, makes a prima facie showing under section 2244(b)(2)(A), and is granted. *See Montgomery v. Louisiana,*— U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 718, 193 L.Ed.2d 599 (2016); *Woratzeck v. Stewart,*118 F.3d 648, 650 (9th Cir. 1997).

The Clerk shall transfer Scott’s opening brief (Docket Entry No. 16), to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, to be processed as a section 2254 habeas petition. The petition shall be deemed filed in the district court on September 29, 2014, the date the opening brief was filed in this court. *See Orona*
      *552
      *v. United States,*826 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2016).

Because we grant the alternative request for authorization, the appeal has been rendered moot and we do not address the certified issue raised on appeal. We leave it to the district court to address the merits of Scott’s claim and the effect, if any, of Scott’s proceedings under California Penal Code section 1170(d)(2) on his claim.

All pending motions are denied as moot.

GRANTED.

**This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.