alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00051

- CV

TINA M. CANTRELL APPELLANT

V.

RONALD M. CANTRELL APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF PARKER COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

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

On July 10, 2013 and August 1, 2013 , we notified appellant that her brief

had not been filed as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a).

See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss the appeal for want of

prosecution unless appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed

with the court within ten days a response showing grounds for continuing the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3. We have not received any response.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Because appellant 's brief has not been filed, we dismiss the appeal for

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GARDNER, WALKER, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: August 22, 2013
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0074 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0074

**2002/74/EC: Commission Decision of 30 January 2002 amending Decision 97/569/EC drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States authorise imports of meat products, to include a Malaysian establishment (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 328) **

*
Official Journal L 033 , 02/02/2002 P. 0029 - 0030 *

Commission Decision

of 30 January 2002

amending Decision 97/569/EC drawing up provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States authorise imports of meat products, to include a Malaysian establishment

(notified under document number C(2002) 328)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/74/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 95/408/EC of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live bivalve molluscs(1), as last amended by Decision 2001/4/EC(2), and in particular Article 2(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Provisional lists of third country establishments from which the Member States authorise imports of meat products have been drawn up by Commission Decision 97/569/EC(3), as last amended by Decision 2000/555/EC(4).

(2) The Commission has received from Malaysia details of a poultrymeat product establishment, with guarantees that it fully meets the relevant Community health requirements and that should this establishment fail to do so, its export activities to the European Community would be suspended.

(3) A provisional list of establishments producing poultrymeat products may thus be drawn up in respect of Malaysia, and Decision 97/569/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(4) The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The text in the Annex to this Decision is added to the Annex to Decision 97/569/EC.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 January 2002.

For the Commission

David Byrne

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 243, 11.10.1995, p. 17.

(2) OJ L 2, 5.1.2001, p. 21.

(3) OJ L 234, 26.8.1997, p. 16.

(4) OJ L 235, 19.9.2000, p. 25.

ANNEX

Malaysia

>TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7098 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7098

 To direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study to identify the 
 private entities participating in Skillbridge that offer positions in 
   registered apprenticeship programs to members of the Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2024

 Ms. Sherrill (for herself, Mrs. Kiggans of Virginia, Mr. Allred, Mr. 
   Crow, Mr. Davis of North Carolina, Mr. Gottheimer, Mr. Kim of New 
Jersey, Ms. Norton, Ms. Titus, and Ms. Tokuda) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study to identify the 
 private entities participating in Skillbridge that offer positions in 
   registered apprenticeship programs to members of the Armed Forces.

    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 ``Servicemember Apprenticeship Act''.

SEC. 2. SKILLBRIDGE: STUDY ON APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS.

    (a) Study.--Not later than September 30, 2024, the Secretary of 
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the Department in which 
the Coast Guard is operating, shall conduct a study to identify the 
private entities participating in Skillbridge that offer positions in 
registered apprenticeship programs to covered members.
    (b) Recruitment.--The Secretary shall consult with officials and 
employees of the Department of Labor who have experience with 
registered apprenticeship programs to facilitate the Secretary entering 
into agreements with entities that offer positions described in 
subsection (a) in areas where the Secretary determines few such 
positions are available to covered members.
    (c) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) The term ``covered member'' means a member of the Armed 
        Forces eligible for Skillbridge.
            (2) The term ``registered apprenticeship program'' means an 
        apprenticeship program registered under the Act of August 16, 
        1937 (commonly known as the ``National Apprenticeship Act''; 50 
        Stat. 664, chapter 663; 29 U.S.C. 50 et seq.).
            (3) The term ``Skillbridge'' means an employment skills 
        training program under section 1143(e) of title 10, United 
        States Code.
                                 <all>
```
# EUR-Lex - 32002D0262 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32002D0262

**2002/262/EC,ECSC,Euratom: Decision of the European Parliament of 14 March 2002 amending Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties **

*
Official Journal L 092 , 09/04/2002 P. 0013 - 0014 *

Decision of the European Parliament

of 14 March 2002

amending Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties

(2002/262/EC, ECSC, Euratom)

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community and in particular Article 195(2) thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and in particular Article 20 D(4) thereof,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community and in particular Article 107 D(4) thereof,

Having regard to the European Parliament resolution of 17 November 2000 on the modification of the European Parliament's decision of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties(1),

Having regard to the opinion of the Commission,

With the approval of the Council,

Whereas:

(1) Pursuant to Article 22, paragraph 5, of the Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of the European Communities(2), the Ombudsman is treated as an institution for the purposes of that Regulation.

(2) Council Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 2673/1999 amending the Financial Regulation created a specific section for the Ombudsman in the general budget of the European Union and amended the provisions of the Financial Regulation relative thereto accordingly.

(3) It is therefore necessary to amend European Parliament Decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 9 March 1994 on the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties(3) since it provides for the budget of the Ombudsman to be placed in an annex to Section I (Parliament) of the general budget of the European Communities.

(4) Articles 12 and 16 of that decision must therefore be deleted.

HEREBY DECIDES:

Article 1

Articles 12 and 16 of decision 94/262/ECSC, EC, Euratom shall be deleted.

Article 2

This decision shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 3

This decision shall take effect on the date of its publication.

It shall be applicable with effect from 1 January 2000.

Done at Strasbourg, 14 March 2002.

For the European Parliament

The President

P. Cox

(1) OJ C 223, 8.8.2001, p. 366.

(2) OJ L 356, 31.12.1977, p. 1. Regulation amended by Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 2673/1999 (OJ L 326, 18.2.1999, p. 1).

(3) OJ L 113, 4.5.1994, p. 15.
#### Marion County v. Galvin.

I. Taxation: assessment: penalty for refusing to make oath to inventory. A tax-payer cannot be made liable to the penalty prescribed by § 824 of the Code, for refusing to make oath or affirmation to the inventory of his taxable property, unless it is shown that, before the oath or affirmation was demanded by the assessor, the latter informed him of the valuation put upon his property, and of his right to appear before the board of equalization for a change of the assessment, if he felt aggrieved thereby, as required by § 2, Chap. 109, Laws of 1880.

*Appeal from Marion Circuit Court.*

Wednesday, October 19

Action under tlie statute to recover of the defendant a penalty for refusing to make oath or affirmation to the cor rectness of the inventory of his taxable property as given by him for taxation. There was a trial to the court, and judgment was rendered against tbe defendant as claimed. He appeals.

*Stone &*Gamble, for appellant.

*T. J.*Anderson, for appellee.

Adams, Ch. J.

In 1885, and again in 1886, the *19defendant gave the assessor an inventory of his property for taxation. The petition avers that he refused to make oath or affirmation to either inventory. This the defendant denied. Precisely what was said between the assessor and the defendant, especially when assessed in 1885, is not very clearly shown. But we do not need to determine this question. Section 824 of the Code provides that the assessor shall administer an oath or affirmation, etc. But it was provided by the Eighteenth General Assembly (chapter 109, § 2,) that the assessor shall, before administering the oath or affirmation, as provided in section 824 of the Code, to the person assessed, inform him of the valuation put upon his property, and notify him that, if he feels aggrieved, to appear before the board of equalization., and show why the assessment should be changed.

It is evident that the assessor has no authority to require the oath or affirmation, or administer the same, until he has given such information and notice. The refusal to make oath or affirmation which, under the statute, subjects the person assessed to the penalty in question, must be a refusal made to a person who has authority to require the oath or affirmation. It was, we think, incumbent upon the plaintiff to show that the assessor had such authority. On this point, if there is any evidence at all, we think it appears that the assessor did not give the information or notice, and did not have the authority. The refusal, then, if there was one, was not the refusal contemplated by the statute; and the defendant, we think, did not become liable to the penalty.

Reversed.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-5296

_____________________________

ANGELO DARILLO BAKER,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County.

Brantley S. Clark, Jr., Judge.

October 21, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Danielle Jorden, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### FRONT ROW TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MLB ADVANCED MEDIA, L.P., NBA Media Ventures, Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., DBA Glenn Beck Program, Inc., GBTV, LLC, Premiere Radio Networks Inc., Turner Sports Interactive, Inc., Turner Digital Basketball Services, Inc., Defendants-Appellees

2016-2604

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

September 18, 2017

Michael W. Shore, Shore Chan DePum-po LLP, Dallas, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Alfonso Chan, Russell J. Depalma, Christopher Liimatainen Evans, Ari Rafilson.

David B. Weaver, Baker Botts, LLP, Austin, TX, argued for all defendants-ap-pellees. Defendants-appellees NBA Media Ventures, Turner Sports Interactive, Inc., Turner Digital Basketball Services, Inc. also represented by Jeffrey Ta-Hwa Han, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Austin, TX; Hilary L. Preston, New York, NY.

Alan Ernst Littmann, Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan *&*Baum, LLP, Chicago, IL, for defendants-appellees MLB Advanced Media, L.P., Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., GBTV, LLC, Premiere Radio Networks Inc. Defendants-appellees Mercury Radio Arts, Inc., GBTV, LLC,. Premiere Radio Networks Inc. also represented by Eleanor M. Lackman, Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP, New York, NY.

(Newman, Dyk, and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jesus LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40620 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 3, 2017

Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jesus Lopez, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM; *

Jesus Lopez appeals the district court’s restitution order imposed following his guilty plea to receiving and distributing child pornography in interstate and foreign commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252A(a)(2)(A), 2252A(b)(l), and 2256. He argues for the first time on appeal that the district court cannot order him to pay restitution for conduct not charged in the indictment, i.e. any child pornography downloaded or distributed outside the time *376period of September 1, 2013, to March 31, 2015.

Our review of this unpreserved objection is for plain error. *See United States v. Mason,*722 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2013). To succeed on plain error review, Lopez must show a forfeited error that is clear or obvious and that affects his substantial rights. *See Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. *Id.*

District courts are required to order restitution for offenses involving child pornography. 18 U.S.C. § 2259(a). Generally, a restitution award can only include losses that directly resulted from the offense of conviction. *Paroline v. United States,*— U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1710, 1731-32, 188 L.Ed.2d 714 (2014). However, “[t]he court may also order restitution in any criminal case to the extent agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3); *see United States v. Maturin,*488 F.3d 657, 661 (5th Cir. 2007). This court construes a plea agreement under normal principles of contract interpretation. *United States v. McKinney,*406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005).

, Lopez has not shown that the district court erred, plainly or otherwise. Lopez’s plea agreement specifically provided that he would pay “full restitution” to all victims “regardless of the count(s) of conviction.” While Lopez argues that he interpreted the agreement to mean he would pay restitution only to victims of charged offenses in the indictment, the plea agreement has no such limitation against providing restitution to victims whose images Lopez downloaded before September 2013. *See United States v. Miller,*406 F.3d 323, 329-30 (5th Cir. 2005). The district court’s interpretation of the plea agreement is not clearly erroneous. *See id.*Therefore, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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. Sergio Aaron RUIZ-TAPIA, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11043 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 18, 2017

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

*364Sergio Aaron Ruiz-Tapia, Pro Se

Before KING, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Sergio Aaron Ruiz-Tapia 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). Ruiz-Tapia has filed a response. His motion for the appointment of substitute counsel is untimely. *United States v. Wagner,*158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998). We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Ruiz-Tapia’s response. 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, Ruiz-Tapia’s motion for appointment of substitute counsel is DENIED, 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.
Exhibit
23.2





Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (File No. 333-163159) and Form S-8 (File No. 333-163160), of Interclick,
Inc. and Subsidiary of our report dated March 19, 2009 with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Interclick, Inc. and Subsidiary as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2008 included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2009 and to the reference to our firm under the
heading “Experts” in the prospectus on the Form S-3.








/s/
Salberg & Company, P.A.


SALBERG
& COMPANY, P.A.


Boca
Raton, Florida


March 31,
2010
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Abraham SALAMANCA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30187

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 8, 2017 *

Filed May 11, 2017

Thomas John Hanlon, Assistant U.S. Attorney, United States Attorney’s Office, Yakima, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jeremy B. Sporn, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FDWAID — Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington, Yakima, WA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before: REINHARDT, LEAYY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Abraham Salamanca appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 30-month term of supervised release imposed upon revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Salamanca contends that his supervised release term is substantively unreasonable in light of his lengthy period of compliance *995during his prior term of supervised release and because it will not promote his rehabilitation. The district court did not abuse its discretion. *See Gall v. United States,*552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). The term of supervised release is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Salamanca’s repeated violations. *See Gall,*552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586. Furthermore, contrary to Salamanca’s contention, the record reflects that the district court considered only proper sentencing factors. *See United States v. Miqbel,*444 F.3d 1173, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 782 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 782

  To amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Labor Management 
 Relations Act, 1947, to permit additional remedies in certain unfair 
             labor practice cases, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                  May 9 (legislative day, May 1), 1995

   Mr. Simon introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Labor Management 
 Relations Act, 1947, to permit additional remedies in certain unfair 
             labor practice cases, and for other purposes.
    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 ``Labor Relations Remedies Act of 
1995''.

SEC. 2. BOARD REMEDIES.

    Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
160(c)) is amended by inserting after the fourth sentence the following 
new sentence: ``If the Board finds that an employee was discharged as a 
result of an unfair labor practice, the Board in such order shall (1) 
award back pay in an amount equal to three times the employee's wage 
rate at the time of the unfair labor practice and (2) notify such 
employee of such employee's right to sue for punitive damages and 
damages with respect to a wrongful discharge under section 303 of the 
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 187), as amended by the 
Labor Relations Remedies Act of 1995.''.

SEC. 3. COURT REMEDIES.

    Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 
187), is amended by adding at the end the following new subsections:
    ``(c) It shall be unlawful, for purposes of this section, for any 
employer to discharge an employee for exercising rights protected under 
the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158).
    ``(d) An employee whose discharge is determined by the National 
Labor Relations Board under section 10(c) of the National Labor 
Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160(c)) to be as a result of an unfair labor 
practice under section 8 of such Act may file a civil action in any 
district court of the United States, without respect to the amount in 
controversy, to recover punitive damages or if actionable, in any State 
court to recover damages based on a wrongful discharge.''.
                                 <all>
```