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

San Antonio, Texas

March 18, 2020

No. 04-20-00042-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.X.R. AND M.S.R.,

From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-FLD-000964-D1

The Honorable Selina Nava Mireles, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This an appeal from an order terminating appellant’s parental rights. Appellant filed an 

amended motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief and then filed appellant’s brief a 

few days later. Appellant’s amended motion for extension of time is GRANTED. However, 

appellant’s brief identifies the parents involved in this appeal by full name and not by an alias. 

Additionally, the appendix attached identifies not only the parents by their full name, but also 

identifies the minor children by name and discloses their dates of birth. We therefore STRIKE 

appellant’s brief and appendix and ORDER appellant to file a new appellant’s brief and

appendix, appropriately redacted, within three days of this order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.8, 9.9.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of March, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6896 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 6896

To require a briefing on the national security threats associated with 
   Chinese autonomous ground vehicles operating in the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 22, 2023

 Ms. Slotkin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require a briefing on the national security threats associated with 
   Chinese autonomous ground vehicles operating in the United States.

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

SECTION 1. BRIEFING ON NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS ASSOCIATED WITH 
              CHINESE AUTONOMOUS GROUND VEHICLES OPERATING IN THE 
              UNITED STATES.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense, acting through Under 
Secretary of Defense for Policy and in coordination with the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions and Sustainment and other United 
States Government agencies as appropriate, to provide a briefing to the 
Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the 
Senate not later than March 30, 2024, on the national security threats 
associated with Chinese autonomous ground vehicles operating in the 
United States, especially those with access to or operating in the 
vicinity of Department of Defense military bases and installations and 
other sensitive United States Government facilities, and potentially 
sharing geospatial and other data with the Chinese Communist Party 
(CCP).
    (b) Matters To Be Included.--The briefing required by subsection 
(a) should include the type of data that can be collected, the dual-use 
implications of autonomous ground vehicle technologies and their 
enabling factors, and how the CCP or People's Liberation Army could 
potentially use the data it collects in the United States to support 
its military operational planning.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2005052EN.01006401.xml

| 25.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 52/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 52/64

---

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 453/2002 of 13 March 2002 adapting Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 and Commission Regulations (EC) No 1799/2001, (EC) No 2125/95 and (EC) No 3223/94 as regards the combined nomenclature codes for certain fruits and vegetables

(
  Official Journal of the European Communities L 72 of 14 March 2002
  )

On page 10, in Article 1, second indent, last line:

for:

‘... ex 0812 90 95
  ’,

read:

‘... ex 0812 90 99
  ’.

---
#### Tonya R. CHAPMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREENVILLE SC UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE; Jennifer J Aidrich, Asst. US Atty. Dep Chief Civil Div.; Ann E Mandernach, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1717

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: November 3, 2017

Decided: November 13, 2017

Tonya R. Chapman, Appellant Pro Se.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Tonya R. Chapman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her complaint without prejudice and without issuance or service of process. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that Chapman’s claims be dismissed and advised Chapman that a failure to timely file specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Chapman has waived appellate review by failing to file objections that were specific to the basis of the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
|                                       | Jurisdiction | Direct and Indirect |
|--------------------------------------------|--------------|---------------------|
| Name of Subsidiary                         | of Formation | Effective Ownership |
| Acadian Gas, LLC                           | Delaware     | 66%                 |
| Acadian Gas Pipeline System                | Texas        | 100%                |
| Calcasieu Gas Gathering System             | Texas        | 100%                |
| Cypress Gas Marketing, LLC                 | Delaware     | 100%                |
| Cypress Gas Pipeline, LLC                  | Delaware     | 100%                |
| DEP Offshore Port System, LLC              | Texas        | 100%                |
| DEP OLPGP, LLC                             | Delaware     | 100%                |
| DEP Operating Partnership, L.P.            | Delaware     | 100%                |
| Enterprise Big Thicket Pipeline System LLC | Texas        | 100%                |
| Enterprise GC, L.P.                        | Delaware     | 66%                 |
| Enterprise Holding III, LLC                | Delaware     | 100%                |
| Enterprise Intrastate L.P.                 | Delaware     | 51%                 |
| Enterprise Lou-Tex Propylene Pipeline L.P. | Delaware     | 66%                 |
| Enterprise Texas Pipeline LLC              | Texas        | 51% (1)             |
| Evangeline Gulf Coast Gas, LLC             | Delaware     | 100%                |
| MCN Acadian Gas Pipeline, LLC              | Delaware     | 100%                |
| MCN Pelican Interstate Gas, LLC            | Delaware     | 100%                |
| Mont Belvieu Caverns, LLC                  | Delaware     | 66%                 |
| Neches Pipeline System                     | Texas        | 100%                |
| Pontchartrain Natural Gas System           | Texas        | 100%                |
| Sabine Propylene Pipeline L.P.             | Texas        | 66%                 |
| South Texas NGL Pipelines, LLC             | Delaware     | 66%                 |
| Tejas-Magnolia Energy, LLC                 | Delaware     | 100%                |
| TXO-Acadian Gas Pipeline, LLC              | Delaware     | 100%                |
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 9 Referral Instructions Senate (RIS)]

  1st Session
                                  S. 9

    To direct the Senate and the House of Representatives to enact 
legislation on the budget for fiscal years 1996 through 2003 that would 
                balance the budget by fiscal year 2003.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 4, 1995

Mr. Daschle (for himself, Mr. Exon, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Robb, 
Mr. Kerry, Mr. Pell, Ms. Moseley-Braun, and Mr. Harkin) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred jointly pursuant to 
   the order of August 4, 1977, to the Committees on the Budget and 
Governmental Affairs, with instructions that if one committee reports, 
    the other committee have thirty days to report or be discharged

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To direct the Senate and the House of Representatives to enact 
legislation on the budget for fiscal years 1996 through 2003 that would 
                balance the budget by fiscal year 2003.

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

SECTION 1. BUDGET RESOLUTION FOR FISCAL YEARS 1996 THROUGH 2003.

    Not later than the end of the 1st session of the 104th Congress, 
the Senate and House of Representatives shall--
            (1) adopt a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
        years 1996 through 2003; and
            (2) enact all the necessary authorizing and appropriations 
        legislation,
that would balance the Federal budget by the beginning of fiscal year 
2003.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.25

       * Certain portions of this exhibit have been omitted pursuant to a
               request for confidential treatment which has been
                         filed separately with the SEC.

                    EOTT ENERGY OPERATING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                                  P.O. BOX 4666
                            HOUSTON, TEXAS 77210-4666


                                 August 23, 2001


Koch Petroleum Group, L.P.
Attention: James B. Urban
P. O. Box 2302
Wichita, Kansas 67201

Re:      Crude Oil Supply and Terminalling Agreement ("Agreement") dated
         December 1, 1998 by and between EOTT Energy Operating Limited
         Partnership ("EOTT") and Koch Petroleum Group, L.P. ("Koch"), EOTT
         Contract No. 37562

Gentlemen:

         Effective September 1, 2001, for a period of three months, and
continuing month to month thereafter on an evergreen basis subject to
cancellation by either party with 30-day notice, each party agrees to amend
Section 3.1 of the Agreement, Supply Volume Price Formal, in its entirety, to
provide:

                         ARTICLE 3 - SUPPLY VOLUME PRICE

3.1      [*]

         (a)  [*]

         (b)  [*]

         In recognition of this amendment, both parties agree to suspend the
right to make any claims regarding any renegotiation of the Supply Volume Price
pursuant to Section 8 and termination of the aforementioned Agreement pursuant
to Sections 8.3 through 8.6 for a period of time this amendment is in effect,
starting September 1, 2001.

         If the parties issue a 30-day notice of cancellation for this
amendment, the claims previously suspended shall be reinstated and each party
shall be allowed to exercise any and all rights they may have under the
Agreement. Additionally, Section 3.1 shall revert to the language in the
original Agreement at the end of the 30-day cancellation notice period.

         Should any party claim Uneconomic Market Conditions, as defined in the
Agreement, the prices used to calculate such conditions shall be the Supply
Volume Price


<PAGE>

Koch Petroleum Group, L.P.
August 23, 2001
Page 2

Formula in effect for each month in question. Any claim for Uneconomic Market
Conditions shall be made pursuant to the terms of the original Agreement and the
suspension period shall not affect how such calculation is performed. [*]

         Except as hereby modified, all other terms and conditions of the
Agreement, and any amendments hereto, shall remain in full force and effect.


EOTT Energy Operating Limited Partnership   Koch Petroleum Group, L.P.
By: EOTT Energy Corp., its General Partner  By: KPG/GP, Inc. its General Partner

By: /s/ Robert M. Sanford mms               By:
    --------------------------------------      --------------------------------
Printed Name:  Robert M. Sanford            Printed Name:
                                                          ----------------------
Title:  General Manager                     Title:
                                                   -----------------------------
#### Wilson Antonio RIVERA-TORRES, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. Attorney General, Respondent

No. 16-60812 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 8, 2017

Sheridan Gary Green, Sheridan Green Law, P.L.L.C., Houston, TX, for Petitioner

Lindsay M. Corliss, Office of Immigration Litigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before JONES, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Wilson Antonio Rivera-Torres, a native and citizen of El Salvador, moved to reopen to challenge his *in absentia*removal order entered in 2006. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his motion and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed his appeal. Rivera moved to reconsider, which the BIA also denied. He petitions for review of only the BIA’s order denying his motion to reconsider.

“[T]he BIA’s denial of a motion to reconsider [is reviewed] under a highly deferential abuse of discretion standard.” *Le v. Lynch,*819 F.3d 98, 104 (5th Cir. 2016). Because Rivera has not petitioned for review of the BIA’s underlying order dismissing his appeal of the IJ’s decision, we lack jurisdiction to review any challenge to that order. *Bright v. Holder,*649 F.3d 397, 399 n.1 (5th Cir. 2011); *Guevara v. Gonzales,*450 F.3d 173, 176 (5th Cir. 2006). We also lack jurisdiction to review any issue Rivera did not exhaust by first presenting it to the BIA. *E.g., Omari v. Holder,*562 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir. 2009).

Rivera fails to address how the BIA abused its discretion in denying reconsideration. Instead, he asserts: the notice of the removal hearing was improperly *389served on an attorney who no longer represented him; he was not required to comply with the procedural requirements for establishing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; or, in the alternative, he had substantially complied with those requirements and the BIA erred in requiring strict compliance. But, Rivera did not present these points to the BIA in his reconsideration motion; therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. *See Bright,*649 F.3d at 399 n.1; *Omari,*562 F.3d at 318-19.

DISMISSED.

*

 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.
#### William FLETCHER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORIZON HEALTH SERVICES, and employees; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-36073

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed November 1, 2017

*725William Fletcher, Pro Se

Dylan A. Eaton, Attorney, Joseph Kevin West, Esquire, Attorney, Parsons Behle *&*Latimer, Boise, ID, for Defendants-Appel-lees

Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *725*See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

William Fletcher, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutionally inadequate dental care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *Toguchi v. Chung,*391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Fletcher did not exhaust his claims prior to filing this action and failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether there was “something in his particular case that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively unavailable to him.” *Albino v. Baca,*747 F.3d 1162, 1172 (9th Cir. 2014); *Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 88, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (to properly exhaust, “a prisoner must complete the administrative review process in accordance with the applicable procedural rules”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the district court’s April 8, 2016 order, and in denying Fletcher’s motion for reconsideration of the same order, because defendants demonstrated a proper basis for relief, whereas Fletcher failed to do so. *See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc.,*5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying Fletcher’s motion for reconsideration of the district court’s November 29, 2016 order because Fletcher failed to amend his notice of appeal or file a new notice of appeal after the motion for reconsideration was denied. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Fletcher’s motion requesting emergency relief (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1
     
         AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SOUTH SEAS PROPERTIES
                COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
             MANAGEMENT EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
                              
         This Amendment No. 1 to the South Seas Properties Company
     Limited Partnership Management Equity Incentive Plan is
     adopted this 1 2th day of June , 1997 by South Seas
     Properties Company Limited Partnership, an Ohio limited
     partnership (the "Company").
     
     W I T N E S S E T H:
     
         WHEREAS, effective February 26, 1996, the Company adopted
     the South Seas Properties Company Limited Partnership
     Management Equity Incentive Plan (the "Plan"); and
     
         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to
     increase the number of Units which may be issued pursuant
     to the Plan;
     
         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended by
     substituting the number 1,100,000 for 840,000 in the
     first sentence of Section 4 of the Plan.
     
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, by its General Partner,
     has
     
     executed this document this 12th day of June , 1997,
     effective for all purposes as of June 12th , 1997.
                              
                            By:
                              
     91\17537CYA.60A
     
     -
     
     SOUTH SEAS PROPERTIES COMPANY
                              LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                              T & T R ~ ~ , L.C., General
                                   Partner
     
                            )~
               ROBERT M. TAYLOR, Chairman J
SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                          WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION

Re: RALI SERIES 2006-QS18 TRUST (the "Issuing Entity")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized officer of Wachovia Mortgage  Corporation as
servicer (the "Servicer") pursuant to the applicable  servicing agreement,  does
hereby certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable servicing agreement has been made under my supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing agreement in all material
respects  throughout  such period or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any
such obligation in any material  respect,  specifying each such failure known to
me and the nature and status thereof.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has duly executed this  Certificate this 1
day of March 2007.


Wachovia Mortgage Corporation


By:    /s/ Kendal A. Leeson
Name:  Kendal A. Leeson
Title: Vice President
#### In the Matter of the Will of John McCarthy, Deceased.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department,*

*Filed April 16, 1891.)*

Evidence—Probate—Code Civ. Pro., § 835.

Evidence of the attorney who drew the will as to communications made to him by the testator, not in the presence of the subscribing witnesses or any third person, relating to the disposition of testator’s property, is inadmissible in proceedings to probate the will.

Appeal, by contestants, from a decree of the surrogate of Ontario county, admitting the will to probate.

*D. B. Backenstose,*for app’lts; *J. B. Bean,*for resp’ts.

Dwight, P. J.

The only questions determined by the decision of the court on a former appeal in this case were (1) of the admissibility in evidence, by the testimony of the witness Nicholas, an attorney and counselor-at-law, who drew the will, of the conver*125sation had by him with the deceased, at the time the will was executed, in the presence of the subscribing witnesses; and (2) of the admissibility of the answer by the same witness to the question : “ Where did you get your instructions from how to draw it (the will)?"

For the exclusion of these two items of evidence the former decree was reversed.

On the second hearing the learned surrogate, in supposed deference to certain intimations contained in the opinion delivered at general term, not necessary to the decision actually made, admitted the testimony of the witness Nicholas as to all the communications made to him by the testator, not in the presence of the subscribing witnesses or of any third person, relating to the disposition of the testator’s property. This ruling, which was excepted to by the contestants, was in apparent violation of the rule declared by the court of appeals in the two cases of *In re*Coleman, 111 N. Y., 220; 19 N. Y. State Rep., 501, and *Loder*v. *Whelpley,*111 N. Y., 239; 19 N. Y. State Rep., 631. And it was, as the surrogate states in his opinion, upon the evidence so received that the second decree was based.

For the error of the reception of the evidence last mentioned, the decree now appealed from must be reversed.

Decree appealed from reversed and the proceeding remitted to the surrogate of Ontario county for a rehearing, with costs of this appeal to both parties, payable out of the estate.

Macomber and Corlett, JJ., concur.