alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 94-41203

Summary Calendar

 

RANULFO RAZO-ESPINOZA,

Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

 

Petition for Review of a Decision of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

(A90 423 771)

 

July 29, 1996

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

We dismiss this petition for review of the decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the

immigration judge finding petitioner deportable as charged under

section 241(a)(2)(B)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the

Act), 8 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2)(B)(i), and denying his request for
1Before the immigration judge and the BIA, petitioner admitted

he was an alien and was deportable under section 241(a)(2)(B)(i) of

the Act, and his brief in this Court likewise so admits.

Petitioner’s brief (as respondent) to the immigration judge

describes his offense as follows:

“On or about May 5, 1993, respondent was convicted in the

105th Judicial District of Kleberg County, Texas, of the

unlawful possession of a usable quantity of between five

and fifty pounds of marijuana, a second degree felony.

He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years,

which sentence was suspended, and Respondent was placed

on probation for five years.”

2

discretionary relief under section 212(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. §

1182(c).

The petition for review was timely filed November 21, 1994.

Under section 440(a)(10) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), signed into law by the President April

24, 1996, we have no jurisdiction to review “[a]ny final order of

deportation against an alien who is deportable by reason of having

committed a criminal offense covered by section 241(a)(2)(A)(iii),

(B), (C), [or] (D)” of the Act. Petitioner admits that he is such

a person: that is, that he is an alien who committed, and was

convicted of, a deportable offense under section 241(a)(2)(B)(i),

and that he is, and was determined to be, deportable on that

account (his only claim is that he was wrongfully denied relief

under section 212(c)).1

Consequently, we lack jurisdiction over the petition for

review. See Mendez-Rosas v. INS, No. 95-60472 (5th Cir. June 26,

1996).
3

The petition for review is 

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 07/31/2014

FROM: Laura Farris/EPA Region 8

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Tribal Consultation on 111d held on 07/18/2014

SUMMARY: 

On July 18, 2014, EPA Headquarters led a Tribal Consultation via conference call on the proposed Clean

Power Plan for Existing Power. The Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, the Crow Tribe of 

Indians, and an attorney for the MHA Nation (Three Affiliated Tribes) participated. The Clean Power Plan 

for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

See attached.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the
period ending June 25, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James D. Weddle, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ James D. WeddleChief Executive OfficerThe Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.August 6, 2010
#### Byron POLLARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. ED 104946

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: January 16, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Andrew E. Zleit, 1010 Market Street, Suite 1100; St. Louis, MO 63101.

' For Respondent: JOSHUA D. HAW-LEY, Garrick Aplin, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102.

Before Lisa P. Page, P.J., Roy L. Richter, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.

*404ORDER

PER CURIAM

Byron Pollard (“Movant”) appeals from the motion court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant pleaded guilty to the class A felony of murder in the second degree, in violation of Section 565.021 (RSMo. 2000); the class A felony of assault in the first degree, in violation of Section 565.030; the class C felony of attempted distribution of a controlled substance, in violation of Section 195.211; the class A misdemeanor of possession of marijuana, in violation of Section 195.202; and two counts of armed criminal action, in violation of Section 571.015. Movant was sentenced to concurrent terms of life imprisonment for murder in the second degree and two counts of armed criminal action and a consecutive sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment for first-degree assault. Movant was additionally sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for distribution of a controlled substance and one year imprisonment for possession of marijuana to run concurrent with his life sentence. This Court affirmed his convictions and sentences in State v. Pollard, 469 S.W.3d 506 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). We affirm the motion court’s judgment.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-45342 of Conrad Industries, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated February
20, 2002, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Conrad Industries,
Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2001.

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

New Orleans, Louisiana
March 27, 2002
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

      Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant
                to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

         In connection with the Form 10-Q of Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Noven") for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James B. Messiry, Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer of Noven, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

1)       the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2)       the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
         of Noven.


/s/ James B. Messiry
----------------------------------------
Name:    James B. Messiry
Title:   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Date:    August 9, 2002
#### E.A. and R.A., Appellants v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND PROTECTIVE SERVICES, Appellee

NO. 03-15-00811-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin.

January 27, 2016

Alice E. Price, Scott S. Cooley, Martin Millican Cooley, Lampasas, TX, for appellant.

Michael D. Becker, Office of General Counsel, Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Austin, TX, for appel-lee.

Before Justices Puryear, Goodwin, and Field

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Appellants E.A. and R.A. filed their notices of appeal on December 16, 2015. The appellate record was complete January 11, 2016, making appellants’ briefs due Febru*3ary 1, 2016. On January 26, 2016, counsel for appellants filed a motion for extension of time to file appellants’ briefs.

Amendments to the rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals from suits for termination of parental rights. *See*Tex, R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule constrains this Court’s leeway in granting extensions. In this instance, we will grant the motion and order counsel to file appellants’ briefs no later than February 16, 2016. If the briefs are not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on January 27, 2016.
<PAGE>

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 8-K
                                 CURRENT REPORT

                       Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
                       the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

        DATE OF REPORT (DATE OF EARLIEST EVENT REPORTED): APRIL 29, 2002

                                   DYNEGY INC.
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

        Illinois                     1-15659               74-2928353
(State or other jurisdiction  (Commission File Number)    (IRS Employer
    of incorporation)                                   Identification No.)

                           1000 Louisiana, Suite 5800
                              Houston, Texas 77002
                    (Address of principal executive offices)

       Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (713) 507-6400

                                 Not Applicable
          (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)
<PAGE>

ITEM 5. OTHER EVENTS.

     Dynegy Inc. ("Dynegy") has recently become aware of the public announcement
of several class action lawsuits that have been commenced on behalf of
purchasers of publicly traded securities of Dynegy generally during the period
between April 2001 and April 2002. Dynegy has not been served with complaints
relating to these actions. However, based on press reports relating to these
complaints, Dynegy understands that they principally assert that Dynegy and
certain of its officers and directors violated the federal securities laws in
connection with Dynegy's accounting treatment and disclosure of the natural gas
supply transaction that was entered into by Dynegy in April 2001 and the subject
of Dynegy's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on April 25, 2002. Dynegy
anticipates that additional suits of this nature may be commenced and that all
such suits will eventually be consolidated in a single court. Dynegy will fully
analyze these allegations once the complaints are received and, based on its
current understanding, believes these allegations are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against them.

ITEM 7. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS

c) Exhibits. The following exhibits are filed with this document: None.
<PAGE>

                                    SIGNATURE

     Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                    DYNEGY INC.

                           BY:   /s/ Keith R. Fullenweider
                                 ----------------------------------------------
                                 Keith R. Fullenweider
                                 Senior Vice President, Deputy General Counsel
                                 and Secretary

Dated: April 29, 2002
#### COSMO LIGHTING INC., Appellant v. ORSTAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD., Appellee

2017-1804

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 13, 2018

Robert H. Sloss, Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves and Savitch LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellant.

Steven Henderson Washam, Washam PLLC, Dallas, TX, argued for appellee.

(Taranto, Bryson, and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

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

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 18017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06603]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[OMB 3060-1223; FR ID 78823]


Information Collection Being Reviewed by the Federal 
Communications Commission

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission published a document in 
the Federal Register of November 16, 2021 (86 FR 56713), concerning a 
request for comments for the information collection Payment 
Instructions from the Eligible Entity Seeking Reimbursement from the TV 
Broadcaster Relocation Fund. The document omitted the dates, addresses 
and for further information sections from this notice.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of November 16, 2021, in FR Document 2021-
24912, on page 63381, in the first column, correct the Dates, Addresses 
and For Further Information Contact caption to read as follows:

DATES: Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 31, 
2022. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find 
it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, 
you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d282809392b4b1b1fcb5bda4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d0d0f1c1d3b3e3e733a322b">[email protected]</span></a> and to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ae4e3e9e5e6efa4e5e4edefe6efcaece9e9a4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="cca2a5afa3a0a9e2a3a2aba9a0a98caaafafe2aba3ba">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional information about the 
information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-06603 Filed 3-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Janell BISSON, Respondent, v. Shane BISSON, Appellant.

WD 80604

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: December 26, 2017

Preston A. Drobeck and James T. Cook, Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Anita I. Rodarte, Lee’s Summit, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Before Division One: Cynthia L. Martin, Presiding Judge, and James Edward Welsh and Karen King Mitchell, Judges

Order

Per Curiam:

Shane Bisson (Father) appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, awarding sole legal cus*428tody for all medical decisions affecting the parties’ minor children to Janell Bisson (Mother). On appeal, Father argues the trial court erred in (1) rejecting provisions in the parties’ Joint Parenting Plan that provided for joint legal custody for medical decisions and (2) instead granting sole legal custody for all such decisions to Mother. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgment granting sole legal custody for all medical decisions to Mother. Rule 84.16(b).
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-3269

_____________________________

WILLIAM M. CUPP,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition for Writ of Mandamus—Original Jurisdiction.

March 13, 2024

PER CURIAM.

As the circuit court recently issued an order directing the 

State to respond, the Court denies the petition for writ of 

mandamus. Munn v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 807 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 1st 

DCA 2002).

BILBREY, M.K. THOMAS, and LONG, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

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

9.331.

_____________________________
2

William M. Cupp, pro se, Petitioner.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau 

Chief, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
Order entered June 6, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 11
- 01708
- CV HAL RACHAL, JR., Appellant
V. LETKIEWICZ & FOSTER, Appellee On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. P R
- 09
- 2413
- 2 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s June 3, 2013 motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief. Appellant shall file his reply brief on or before July 3, 2013.

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
----

|   | 1.     | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                         |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                    |
|   | 2.     | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Partnership. |

|   | /s/  James      D.      Weddle                                        |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Chief      Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|   | The      Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|   | August      8, 2008                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1994
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### IN RE: Donita J. COLE, Debtor. Donita J. Cole, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MR Capital, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16776

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted December 18, 2017 *

Filed December 20, 2017

*914Donita J. Cole, Pro Se

Stephen Brower, Attorney, Brentwood Law Group, PLLC, Tempe, AZ, Joshua T. Greer, Esquire, Attorney, Moyes Sellers & Hendricks, Ltd., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *914*See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

1 Donita J, Cole appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as equitably moot her appeal from a bankruptcy court order quashing lis pendens. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 168. We review 'for clear error factual findings about mootness, and de novo legal conclusions. *Rev Op Grp. v. ML Manager LLC (In re Mortgs. Ltd.),*771 F.3d 1211, 1214 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Cole’s appeal as equitably moot because Cole did not seek or obtain a stay prior to her appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order, and the real property at issue has since been transferred to a third party. *See Motor Vehicle Casualty Co. v. Thorpe Insulation Co. (In re Thorpe Insulation Co.),*677 F.3d 869, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2012) (discussing factors to be examined when determining equitable mootness). Because Cole has permitted such a comprehensive change of circumstances to occur, it is inequitable to consider the merits of the appeal. *See id.*

We reject as -without merit Cole’s arguments that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that the bankruptcy judge was biased against her.

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

■ Cole’s requests to strike portions of the answering brief, and to take judicial notice, contained in her reply brief, are denied.

Appellee’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 9) is granted.

AFFIRMED.

**

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