alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued December 3, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00284-CV

———————————

LATRICE HARRIS, Appellant

V.

HIGHLAND KNOLLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 908487

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Latrice Harris, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s final 

agreed judgment signed on April 8, 2008. Appellee, Highland Knolls Community 
2

Association, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We 

grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

Generally, a notice of appeal is due within thirty days after the judgment is 

signed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1. The deadline to file a notice of appeal is extended 

to ninety days after the date the judgment is signed if, within thirty days after the 

judgment is signed, any party files a motion for new trial, motion to modify the 

judgment, or motion to reinstate. Id.; see TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(a), (g). The time to 

file a notice of appeal also may be extended if, within fifteen days after the 

deadline to file the notice of appeal, a party properly files a motion for extension. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b), 26.3. And a motion for extension of time is necessarily 

implied when an appellant, acting in good faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the 

time allowed by rule 26.1, but within the fifteen-day extension period provided by 

rule 26.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1, 26.3; Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 

617 (Tex. 1997).

Here, the trial court signed an agreed final judgment on April 8, 2008. The 

clerk’s record filed in this Court does not reflect that appellant filed a 

post-judgment motion or a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, 

which would have extended the time to file a notice of appeal. Accordingly, 

Harris’s notice of appeal was due by May 8, 2008, or by May 23, 2008, with a 
3

fifteen-day extension. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a), 26.3; Verburgt, 959 S.W.2d at 

617. Harris untimely filed her notice of appeal on March 25, 2015. 

Without a timely filed notice of appeal, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1. Accordingly, we grant Highland Knolls’s motion 

and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(f). We 

dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Bland.
1999-DP-00975-SCT
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 10, 2017

No. 04-17-00515-CV

IN RE Kevin OLIVER

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for stay on August 

10, 2017. The court has considered the petition and is of the opinion Relator is not entitled to 

mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion for 

stay are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on August 10, 2017.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 10th day of August, 2017.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 16-2359-CV, pending in the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe 

County, Texas, the Honorable William Old presiding.
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 800

To provide for hearing care services by audiologists to Federal civilian

employees.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 15, 1995

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

to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

To provide for hearing care services by audiologists to

Federal civilian employees.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Hearing Care for

5 Federal Employees Act’’.
2

•S 800 IS

1 SEC. 2. AUDIOLOGIST SERVICES INCLUDED IN FEDERAL

2 EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE CONTRACTS.

3 Section 8902(k)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is

4 amended by inserting ‘‘audiologist,’’ after ‘‘optometrist,’’

5 each place the term appears.

Æ
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No.96-10831

Summary Calendar

JOHN THOMAS BAGLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MARK TOLLE, Judge; DONALD ROSS, Judge;

ROBERT HUTTASH, State Prosecuting Attorney;

JOHN VANCE; DAN MORALES, Attorney General;

GEORGE W. BUSH; JANET RENO, Attorney 

General of the United States; JAMES A. COLLINS,

Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 

Institutional Division; DONALD H. LANE; MICHAEL 

J. MCCORMICK, Presiding Judge; LINDA THOMAS,

Chief Justice,

.

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:96-CV-40-X)

May 30, 1997

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
*Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

1Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973).

2

PER CURIAM:*

John Thomas Bagley, a Texas state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action under the provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 1915A. Finding that Bagley’s allegations

implicate the constitutionality of his conviction, and because it is apparent that he seeks an

immediate release from imprisonment, we must conclude that his sole federal remedy is a

writ of habeas corpus.1

Bagley did not seek habeas relief in the district court; however, he has requested a

limited writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of arguing his appeal before this court. There

is no proper request for habeas relief before this court upon which a panel of this court can

act. Therefore, the dismissal order appealed must be and is AFFIRMED. In view of that

disposition of Bagley’s appeal, his habeas-based motion is DENIED AS MOOT.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5716 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5716

To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from issuing certain licenses 
 in connection with the export or re-export of a commercial passenger 
 aircraft to the Islamic Republic of Iran, to require the Secretary of 
  the Treasury to issue an annual report on the status of, and risks 
related to, U.S. financial institutions involved with the sale or lease 
    of such a commercial passenger aircraft, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 11, 2016

Mr. Pittenger introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
   Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on 
 Financial Services, 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 prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury from issuing certain licenses 
 in connection with the export or re-export of a commercial passenger 
 aircraft to the Islamic Republic of Iran, to require the Secretary of 
  the Treasury to issue an annual report on the status of, and risks 
related to, U.S. financial institutions involved with the sale or lease 
    of such a commercial passenger aircraft, 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. EXPORT PROHIBITION.

    The Secretary of the Treasury may not issue a license for the 
export or re-export of a commercial passenger aircraft to the Islamic 
Republic of Iran.

SEC. 2. TREASURY REPORT ON FINANCING.

    The Secretary of the Treasury shall issue an annual report to the 
Committee on Financial Services of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate--
            (1) stating whether any U.S. financial institution is 
        involved with the sale or lease of commercial passenger 
        aircraft to the Islamic Republic of Iran by a non-U.S. 
        manufacturer; and
            (2) containing a description of the risks related to 
        repayment, money laundering, and the financing of terrorism 
        faced by U.S. financial institutions if they were to be 
        involved in the sale or lease of a commercial passenger 
        aircraft to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
                                 <all>
```
#### Richard HERBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CVS PHARMACY, doing business as Garfield Beach CVS LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-56063

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted October 23, 2017 *

Filed October 30, 2017

Richard Herbert, Pro Se

Jeffrey M. Lenkov, Esquire, Robert P. Wargo, Esquire, Attorney, Manning *&*Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees CVS Pharmacy, Natalie Valerrama

Jeffrey M. Lenkov, Esquire, Manning *&*Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees CVS Pharmacy, Inc., CVS RX Services, Inc.

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

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Herbert appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action alleging discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment on the basis of res judicata. *City of Martinez v. Texaco Trading & Transp., Inc.,*353 F.3d 758, 761 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Herbert’s prior small claims action was based on the same primary right, there was a final judgment on the merits, and the parties are in privity. *See id.*at 762 (elements of res judicata under California law); *see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Mel Rapton, Inc.,*77 Cal.App.4th 901, 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 151, 155 (2000) (under California law, a small claims court judgment precludes further litigation on the same claim).

We do not consider matters not specifí-'eally and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. *See Padgett v. Wright,*587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS
EASTLAND , TEXAS
JUDGMENT

In the interest of R.I.C
., M.E.C

. , * From the 446 th District Court and M .A. C ., children, of Ector County, Trial Court No. E

- 19

- 03

- 0453

- FM

.

No. 11

- 2 3

- 00 203

- C V * November 16 , 20 2 3

* Memorand u m Opinion by Williams , J. (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J., Trotter , J. , and Williams , J. )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that t he appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed.
## MEMORANDUM

**DATE:** 7 /29/15 **FROM:** Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR – 2013 - 0602 **SUBJECT:** Discussion of the Clean Power Plan at the Flexible Packaging Association 2015 EHS Summit
**SUMMARY :**  

### Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to participants at the Flexible Packaging Association 2015 EHS Summit in St. Petersburg, FL, on January 29, 2015. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014. **ATTEN DEES:**  **EPA** Alan Farmer/EPA R4 **External Stakeholders** Approximately 30 attendees **ATTACHMENT**
#### Larry Wayne MCCRAY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-31205 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed November 1, 2017

*350Larry Wayne McCray, Pro Se

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Larry Wayne McCray, Louisiana prisoner # 314700, appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). McCray sought a ruling from the district court that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) “and all other statutes, laws and rules” that prevented him from exercising his First Amendment right of access to the courts were unconstitutional.

McCray points to no specific provision of the AEDPA and identifies no other statute, rule, or law restricting his right of access to the courts. He also fails to set forth any facts showing that the application of the AEDPA, or any other statute, has deprived him of “a reasonably adequate opportunity to file” a nonfrivolous claim. *Johnson v. Rodriguez,*110 F.3d 299, 310-11 (5th Cir. 1997) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Moreover, both the Supreme Court and this court have consistently upheld the constitutionality of various provisions of the AEDPA.

Under the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing McCray’s complaint as frivolous. *See Geiger v. Jowers,*404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Further, because the district court’s dismissal of McCray’s complaint as frivolous counts as a strike under Section 1915(g), McCray is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. *See*§ 1915(g).

*

 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.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13755-13756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05087]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--OPENJS Foundation

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 10, 2022, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative

[[Page 13756]]

Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the 
Act''), OpenJS Foundation has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Functional Software, Inc. (Sentry), San 
Francisco, CA, has been added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and OpenJS Foundation intends to file 
additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On August 17, 2015, OpenJS Foundation filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on September 28, 2015 (80 FR 58297).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on October 5, 
2021. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on November 24, 2021 (86 FR 67081).

Suzanne Morris,
Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-05087 Filed 3-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF TRUSTEE

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Trustee of FSP 50 South Tenth Street Corp. Liquidating
Trust (the “Liquidating Trust”) hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:



(i) the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K
of the Liquidating Trust for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii) the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Liquidating Trust.



Date: March 30, 2016



|By: | /s/ John G. Demeritt                                        
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------
|    | John G. Demeritt                                            
|    | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer        
|    | FSP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC                                 
|    | Trustee of FSP 50 South Tenth Street Corp. Liquidating Trust



The foregoing certification is being furnished with the Liquidating
Trust’s Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being filed for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and it is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing
of the Liquidating Trust, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general information language in such
filing.
EXHIBIT 10.5 - REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT



PROMISSORY NOTE


This promissory note is entered into on January 8th, 2002 between Technology
Connections, Inc. 13777 Ballantyne Corporate Place Charlotte, NC 28277 and
Michael Eugene Durbin and Paulina I. Durbin at 1203 Winding Path Road Clover, SC
29710.

Terms:

Technology Connections, Inc. agrees to issue 120,000 Shares of company common
stock (with registration rights to the first SB-2 registration) to Michael
Eugene Durbin in exchange for $30,000 US Dollars.  The issuance of 120,000
shares will be effective immediately upon signing this agreement.

Use of Proceeds:

Technology Connections, Inc. agrees to use the total proceeds of $30,000 for
consulting fees to begin and complete its SB-2 registration to become a publicly
traded company on the OTC Bulletin Board Exchange.




/s/ Kevin G. Kyzer
------------------
Technology Connections, Inc.



/s/ Michael E. Durbin
---------------------
Michael Eugene Durbin



/s/ Paulina Durbin
------------------
Paulina I. Durbin
#### Gregory A. MILTON, Petitioner-Appellant v. Charles A. DANIELS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee

No. 15-41388 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed April 7, 2017

Gregory A. Milton, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gregory Alan Milton appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. Milton argues that the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) and 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) are unconstitutional and that his petition meets the savings clause of § 2255. He maintains that *Reyes-Requena v. United States,*243 F.3d 893 (5th Cir. 2001), has no application to his § 2241 petition.

As federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, Milton must have statutory authority for the filing of his motion. *See Veldhoen v. United States Coast Guard,*35 F.3d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1994). “Absent jurisdiction conferred by statute, district courts lack power to consider claims.” *Id.*

Milton’s arguments are unavailing. As noted by the district court, had Milton’s pleading been construed as a § 2255 motion, the district court would have lacked jurisdiction to consider it because Milton had been convicted and sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia and because it would have been an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. *See Pack v. Yusuff,*218 F.3d 448, 452 (5th Cir. 2000); *Hooker v. Sivley,*187 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir. 1999); § 2244(b)(3)(A). In addition, based on the claims contained therein, Milton’s motion could not have been construed as a § 2241 petition under the savings clause of § 2255. *See Reyes-Requena,*243 F.3d at 904. Finally, Milton has not shown any basis in circuit law for the argument that the *Reyes-Requena*test is inapplicable to the instant petition.

AFFIRMED.

*

**Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF THE
COMPANY AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                           9,116
<SECURITIES>                                       223
<RECEIVABLES>                                  114,791
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,095
<INVENTORY>                                     27,199
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               238,636
<PP&E>                                         107,903
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,206
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 750,860
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          133,110
<BONDS>                                        265,753
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           32,982
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           226
<OTHER-SE>                                     301,818
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   750,860
<SALES>                                        431,385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               431,385
<CGS>                                          285,365
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  285,365
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,521
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,722)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,674
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,300)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (98,383)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (105,683)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (4.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.68)


</TABLE>