alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Served: OCTOBER 28, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC. 

DOCKET NO. FAA-2014-0809 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

?(; 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2012NM060029) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

~~ Chief Adlninistrativt~.-taw Judg 

;/ 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST -BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 0001 

Todd C. Emerson 

Director- Government and Legal Affairs 

SkyWest Airlines, Inc. 

444 South River Road 

St. George, UT 84 790 

TEL: 435-634-3530 

FAX: 435-634-3505 

Robert Spitzer, Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Northwest Mountain Region, ANM-7 

1601 Lind Avenue S.W. 

Renton, W A 98057 

TEL: 425-227-1847 

FAX: 425-227-1007 

ONE COPY 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0809 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
IB

House Calendar No. 163

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 965

[Report No. 104–420]

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 6, 1995

Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

DECEMBER 18 (legislative day, DECEMBER 15), 1995

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

AN ACT

To designate the United States Courthouse for the Eastern

District of Virginia in Alexandria, Virginia, as the ‘‘Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF ALBERT V. BRYAN UNITED

4 STATES COURTHOUSE.

5 (a) NEW COURTHOUSE.—

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal building located

7 at Courthouse Square South and Jamieson Avenue

8 in Alexandria, Virginia, shall be known and des-
2

•S 965 RH

1 ignated as the ‘‘Albert V. Bryan United States

2 Courthouse’’.

3 (2) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law,

4 map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of

5 the United States to the Federal building referred to

6 in paragraph (1) shall be deemed to be a reference

7 to the ‘‘Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse’’.

8 (b) OLD COURTHOUSE.—

9 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Federal building located

10 at 200 South Washington Street in Alexandria, Vir11 ginia, shall not be known and designated as the

12 ‘‘Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse’’.

13 (2) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law,

14 map, regulation, document, paper, or other record of

15 the United States to the Federal building known and

16 designated prior to the effective date of this section

17 as the ‘‘Albert V. Bryan United States Courthouse’’

18 shall be deemed to be a reference to the Federal

19 building referred to in paragraph (1).

20 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall become ef21 fective on the date of the completion of the construction

22 of the Federal building referred to in subsection (a)(1).

Passed the Senate August 9 (legislative day, July

10), 1995.

Attest: KELLY D. JOHNSTON,

Secretary.

House Calendar No. 163

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 965

[Report No. 104–420]

AN ACT

To designate the United States Courthouse for the

D

Courthouse’’.ginia, as the ‘‘Albert V. Bryan United StatesEastern District of Virginia in Alexandria, VirECEMBER 18 (legislative day, DECEMBER 15), 1995

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed
# Official Journal C 10/14 J

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 10 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4814 January 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 10

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4814 January 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 010/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 010/2 | Appointment of members of the Senior Labour Inspectors' Committee | 2 |
| 2005/C 010/3 | Appointment of members of the Senior Labour Inspectors' Committee | 3 |
| 2005/C 010/4 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3622 — Valeo/Engel) (1) | 4 |
| 2005/C 010/5 | COM documents other than legislative proposals adopted by the Commission | 5 |
| 2005/C 010/6 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3618 — BP/HDPE JV) (1) | 6 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 010/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 010/2

Appointment of members of the Senior Labour Inspectors' Committee

2

2005/C 010/3

Appointment of members of the Senior Labour Inspectors' Committee

3

2005/C 010/4

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3622 — Valeo/Engel) (1)

4

2005/C 010/5

COM documents other than legislative proposals adopted by the Commission

5

2005/C 010/6

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3618 — BP/HDPE JV) (1)

6

---

| | II   Preparatory Acts |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 010/7 | Legislative proposals adopted by the Commission | 7 |

II   Preparatory Acts

Commission

2005/C 010/7

Legislative proposals adopted by the Commission

7

---

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2005/C 010/8 | Corrigendum to State aid — Czech Republic — State aid C 27/04 (ex CZ 49/03) — Agrobanka Praha, a.s./GE Capital Bank, a.s. — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88 (2) of the EC Treaty (OJ C 292, 30.11.2004) | 9 |

Corrigenda

2005/C 010/8

Corrigendum to State aid — Czech Republic — State aid C 27/04 (ex CZ 49/03) — Agrobanka Praha, a.s./GE Capital Bank, a.s. — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88 (2) of the EC Treaty (OJ C 292, 30.11.2004)

(OJ C 292, 30.11.2004)

9

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# Delegation of Authority Under Section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 621 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State the authority under section 506(a)(1) of the FAA to direct the drawdown of up to an aggregate value of $200 million in defense articles and services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training, to provide assistance to Ukraine and to make the determinations required under such section to direct such a drawdown.

                    You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                     *Federal Register*.                

[FR Doc. 2022-05774

Billing code 4710-10-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alma L. WAUGH, Defendant-Appellant, and Comanche County Treasurer; Comanche County Board of County Commissioners, Defendants.

No. 17-6171

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Filed November 24, 2017

(D.C. No. 5:17-CV-00394-F) (W.D. Oklahoma)

Kay Sewell, Office of the United States Attorney, Western District of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Alma L. Waugh, Pro Se

John Nicholas Fleur, Comanche County District Attorney, Comanche County Courthouse, Lawton, OK, for Defendants

Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge

Defendant Alma L, Waugh appeals from the foreclosure judgment entered against *714her by the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

In 1993, Ms. Waugh executed a promissory note for $42,280.00 to the Farmers Home Administration, secured by a mortgage on her home. After she failed to make required payments, the United States brought suit to foreclose on Ms. Waugh’s note and mortgage. It filed a motion for summary judgment supported by the note, the mortgage, an affidavit, and an itemization of the amount due. Ms. Waugh did not respond in opposition to the motion; and the court reviewed the record and granted the motion.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing all facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. *See Fye v. Okla. Corp. Comm’n,*516 F.3d 1217, 1222-23 (10th Cir. 2008). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). We see no error in granting the judgment. Ms. Waugh cites no record evidence that calls into question the validity of the note or the mortgage, or her failure to pay what she was required to pay.

We AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially .assist in the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without *714oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 157 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 157

        Commending Senator Robert Byrd for casting 14,000 votes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                July 27 (legislative day, July 10), 1995

  Mr. Daschle (for himself, Mr. Dole, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Ford, Mr. 
 Thurmond, Mr. Lott, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Abraham, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Ashcroft, 
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Biden, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Bond, Mrs. Boxer, 
Mr. Bradley, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Brown, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Bumpers, Mr. Burns, 
   Mr. Campbell, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Coats, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Cohen, Mr. 
 Conrad, Mr. Coverdell, Mr. Craig, Mr. D'Amato, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Dodd, 
 Mr. Domenici, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Exon, Mr. Faircloth, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. 
Feinstein, Mr. Frist, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Graham, Mr. Gramm, Mr. 
 Grams, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Hatfield, 
 Mr. Heflin, Mr. Helms, Mr. Hollings, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
 Jeffords, Mr. Johnston, Mrs. Kassebaum, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Kennedy, 
 Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Leahy, 
    Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Mack, Mr. McCain, Mr. 
     McConnell, Ms. Mikulski, Ms. Moseley-Braun, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. 
Murkowski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Nunn, Mr. Packwood, Mr. Pell, 
 Mr. Pressler, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Reid, Mr. Robb, Mr. Roth, Mr. Santorum, 
Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Simon, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Smith, Ms. Snowe, 
Mr. Specter, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Warner, and Mr. 
Wellstone) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
        Commending Senator Robert Byrd for casting 14,000 votes.
Whereas the Honorable Robert C. Byrd has served with distinction and commitment 
        as a United States Senator from the State of West Virginia since January 
        3, 1959;
Whereas he has dutifully and faithfully served the Senate six years as Senate 
        majority leader (1977-80, 1987-88) and six years as the Senate minority 
        leader (1981-1986);
Whereas his dedicated service as a United States Senator has contributed to the 
        effectiveness and betterment of this institution;
Whereas he is one of only three United States Senators in American history who 
        has been elected to seven 6-year terms in the Senate;
Whereas he has held more Senate leadership positions than any other Senator in 
        history: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the United States Senate congratulates the Honorable 
Robert C. Byrd, the senior Senator from West Virginia, for becoming the 
first United States Senator in history to cast 14,000 votes.
    Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this 
resolution to Senator Robert C. Byrd.
                                 <all>
```
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kevin Matthew WATKINS Defendant-Appellant

No. 17-1989

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: November 16, 2017

Filed: November 30, 2017

Denis Dean, Aaron L. Jennen, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Arkansas, Fort Smith, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kevin Matthew Watkins, Pro Se

Before WOLLMAN, LOKEN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, Kevin Watkins challenges the sentence the district court1 imposed following his guilty plea to possession of child pornography. His counsel has moved to withdraw and submitted a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), discussing the reasonableness of the sentence.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Watkins, as it properly considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors; and there was no indication that it overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. David, 682 F.3d 1074, 1077 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review); United States v. Wohlman, 651 F.3d 878, 887 (8th Cir. 2011). Furthermore, we have independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion, and affirm.

1

. The Honorable Susan O. Hickey, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.
1 

03-14-00570-CR 

ERIC BYRON CRAYTON § IN THE THIRD 

§ 

V. § COURT OF APPEALS 

§ 

THE STATE OF TEXAS § AUSTIN, TEXAS 

STATE’S LETTER OF AN ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY 

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: 

 Now comes the State of Texas, Appellee in the above-styled and -numbered 

cause, and files this its Letter of an Additional Authority. The State submitted its 

brief on July 3, 2015. In both Appellant’s Brief (February 2, 2015) and Reply Brief 

(August 17, 2015), Appellant relied in part on Pannell v. State, 7 S.W.3d 222, 223 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 1999, pet. ref’d), arguing that “the defendant [must] be aware 

that the thing he altered, destroyed or concealed was evidence in the investigation 

as it existed at the time....” Reply Brief at 12. Although Pannell is not ‘red flagged’

in Westlaw, while researching another case today, the State located the Court of 

Criminal Appeals case Williams v. State, in which the Court stated: 

Pannell grafts a fourth element onto section 37.09(a)(1), and a narrow 

reading of the statute does not support Pannell’s conclusion that a 

person must be “aware that the thing he altered, destroyed, or 

concealed was evidence in the investigation as it existed at the time of 

the alteration, destruction, or concealment.” .... By not requiring an 

exercise in evidentiary theory, the statute is more reflective of 

investigatory reality, envisioning an offender who intends for, but is 

not necessarily aware of, the impairment of something's role as 

evidence in the investigation. 

ACCEPTED

03-14-00570-CR

12977510

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

9/29/2016 2:22:40 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/29/2016 2:22:40 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
2

In conclusion, Appellant’s challenge depends upon an additional 

element to section 37.09(a)(1), introduced by Pannell. This element is 

not supported by the language of the statute and, therefore, 

Appellant’s challenge has no statutory foundation. Moreover, 

Pannell’s fourth element renders the statute impractical and unfit for 

its purpose.

270 S.W.3d 140, 144 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Accordingly, the State submits the 

foregoing Letter of an Additional Authority in the instant case. 

 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Joshua D. Presley

Joshua D. Presley SBN: 24088254

preslj@co.comal.tx.us

Comal Criminal District Attorney’s Office 

150 N. Seguin Avenue, Suite 307

New Braunfels, Texas 78130

Ph: (830) 221-1300 / Fax: (830) 608-2008

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Joshua D. Presley, Assistant District Attorney for the State of Texas, 

Appellee, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this State’s Letter of an 

Additional Authority has been delivered to Appellant ERIC BYRON CRAYTON’s

attorney in this matter:

Richard E. Wetzel

wetzel_law@1411west.com

1411 West Avenue

Austin, TX 78701

Counsel for Appellant on Appeal

by electronically sending it to the foregoing email address through 

efile.txcourts.gov, this 29

th day of September, 2016.

 /s/ Joshua D. Presley

 Joshua D. Presley
----

(2004/C 84 E/0293)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3572/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject:   Lloyds of London

What consideration did the Commission give to the letter from the Lloyds Names Association of early 2003; and what comment does the Commission have on the Court finding of July 2003 that Lloyd's was in breach of the obligations in Article 19 of the pertinent Directive?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

The Commission has received a large number of letters and e-mails from the Chairman of the Lloyd's Names Association (LNA). Receipt of four letters sent in January 2003 were acknowledged in writing by the letter of the Internal Market Directorate-General dated 30 January 2003. The Commission considered these comments as part of its assessment when deciding to close (1) the case in October 2003. Many comments related to the past situation at Lloyd's, i.e. before the entry into force of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, or had regard to non-prudential matters.

The Honourable Member has not fully specified the Court finding to which he refers. However, in the light of the enquiries made by the Commission and having regard to other correspondence received from the LNA Chairman, the Commission considers that this Court finding could relate to the decision of Lord Justice Thomas in the English Commercial Court case of Sphere Drake v. Sterling Cooke Brown (SCB). On the basis of the information provided by the LNA Chairman, this case relates primarily to matters in an individual Lloyd's syndicate during the period 1992-1996 and was therefore not directly relevant to the Commission's assessment of the compatibility of the new regulatory regime.

----

(1)  Please see Commission Press Release IP/03/1386.

----
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00075

- CR

C LYDELL M ARIE O LANIPEKUN

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 297th District Court

of Tarrant C ounty (1380032D)

March 12, 2020

Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s judgment. We modify the “ Plea to Motion to

Adjudicate: ” portion of the trial court ’ s judgment by deleting the p hra se “ Paragr ap h

Three

- True ” and affirm the judgment as mo dified. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack

Justice Dana Womack
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         684,710
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,352,424
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,861
<INVENTORY>                                    768,391
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,747,977
<PP&E>                                      20,003,894
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,356,802
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              81,013,407
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,188,488
<BONDS>                                     35,803,368
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        74,789
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,401,961
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                81,013,407
<SALES>                                     21,333,202
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,333,202
<CGS>                                       14,853,966
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               14,853,966
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                37,118
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             108,301
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,926,841
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,138,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,788,441
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,788,441
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Oscar FLORES, also known as Oscar Rene Flores, Defendant-Appellant

No. 15-41602 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed May 9, 2017

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

Oscar Flores, Pro Se

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Oscar Flores 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). Flores 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 *304leave 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.