alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-24-00191-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 360th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 360-694947-21

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Birdwell and Walker, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Birdwell

IN THE INTEREST OF J.H. AND E.H., CHILDREN
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court terminated Appellant Mother’s parental rights to her children 

J.H. and E.H. based on its findings on endangerment, on her failure to comply with 

court orders, on her controlled-substance use in a manner that endangered the 

children’s health or safety, and on the children’s best interests.1 See Tex. Fam. Code 

Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(D), (E), (O), (P), (2).

Mother’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an Anders brief2 in which she 

concludes that, after a thorough review of the appellate record, the appeal is frivolous. 

See In re K.W., No. 02-23-00082-CV, 2023 WL 4289613, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort 

Worth June 30, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.). Counsel’s brief meets the Anders

requirements by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and showing why 

there are no arguable grounds to advance on appeal.

We provided Mother the opportunity to obtain a copy of the appellate record 

and to file a pro se response, but she has not done so. The Department of Family and 

Protective Services has agreed with Mother’s counsel that the appeal is frivolous.

When an Anders brief is filed, we must independently examine the appellate 

record to determine if any arguable grounds for appeal exist. In re C.J., No. 02-18-

1

The trial court terminated the children’s father’s parental rights in 2022.

2

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967); see In re 

K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774, 776–77 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.) (holding Anders

procedures apply in termination-of-parental-rights cases), disp. on merits, No. 02-01-

00349-CV, 2003 WL 2006583 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth May 1, 2003, no pet.) (mem. 

op.).
3

00219-CV, 2018 WL 4496240, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Sept. 20, 2018, no pet.) 

(mem. op.). Having carefully reviewed counsel’s brief and the appellate record, we 

agree with counsel that Mother’s appeal is without merit. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 

S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); In re D.D., 279 S.W.3d 849, 850 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 2009, pet. denied). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order 

terminating the parent–child relationship between Mother and the children.3

/s/ Wade Birdwell

Wade Birdwell

Justice

Delivered: August 22, 2024

3

Mother’s counsel remains appointed through proceedings in the Texas 

Supreme Court unless otherwise relieved. See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 (Tex. 2016) 

(order); see also Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 107.016(2)(C).
#### AUGUST KOEPER v. TOWN OF LOUISVILLE.1

December 24, 1908.

Nos. 15,831—(165).

Parties to Action,

The supervisors are not necessary parties defendant in an action to enjoin the township from maintaining a ditch to the damage of property owners.

“Unreasonable” Sufficiently Pleaded.

The charge in a complaint that the township wilfully, intentionally, and carelessly cut and maintained a ditch, to the damage of a property owner, is equivalent to charging that it was unreasonably done.

Action in the district court for Scott county to restrain defendant town from allowing an overflow of water from a certain meandered lake within the town, and requiring it to close “a hole into and through the north bank of said O’Dowd’s lake in said highway several feet below the surface of said lake whereby” water was allowed to flow out of said lake, and for $1,000 damages. Defendant demurred to the complaint on the ground of defect of parties defendant in- not joining the board of supervisors and the road builder of-the town, and the county superintendent of highways, and on the further ground *270that it did not state a cause of action. From an order, Morrison, J., ■overruling the demurrer, defendant appealed.

Affirmed.

*F. J. Leonard,*for appellant.

*■H: J. Peck*and *James McHale,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 118 N. W. 1025.

LEWIS, J.

The object of this action was to enjoin the township- of Louisville from draining a lake and casting the waters upon respondent’s land, to his damage. The complaint alleges that the township, by its board of supervisors, acting in that capacity for the township, “in an effort to improve the highway in said township, * ■* * wilfully, intentionally, maliciously and carelessly, without any regard to the rights of the landowners lying north of said lake, cut and dug a hole into and through the north bank of said * * * lake, * * * whereby and by reason whereof the waters of said lake were allowed and caused to escape in large quantities,” to the injury of respondent. The township demurred to the complaint upon the ground that there was a defect of parties defendant, and upon the ground that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

1. Upon the first question it is only necessary to say that a township is a body corporate, and may be sued in its corporate capacity; that it can only act through its representatives, and the town board of supervisors have general care and supervision of all roads. Hence the supervisors, within the scope of their authority, were acting for the township, and it was not necessary t,o make them parties to the action.

2. If, in their effort to improve the highways of the town, the supervisors resorted to an unreasonable and unnecessary method of perfecting the drainage, and thereby unnecessarily caused injuries to the respondent’s land, then the town must respond in damages. The charge of negligence does not include the word “unreasonable,” but it is implied in what is charged. Wilfully, intentionally, and carelessly performing an act is equivalent to saying that it was unreasonably done.

Affirmed.
No. D-2712.

#### In re Discipline of Boyd.

Joan M. Boyd, of Gillett, Wis., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring her to show cause why she should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
8034640554

800922 1,693



# Excellence MANUFACt11RFRS OF LOW; LIFE LAMPS



## BRUCE SIEGAL

122 EAST LAUREL STREET MULLINS. SOUTH CAROLINA 29574



## National Electrical Manufacturers Association

2101 L Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington DC 20037-1526 Fax: 202/457-8411



## Lake A. Coulson Legislative Associate 

### 202/457-1985 Nlitchcll I ?. ()(1inak Marketing Ntanager Lighting Products Corning Incorturrmcd Environmental Products Division 33 West I)enison Park ,way NIPXX!X 1 3 Corning, New lurk 148 )1 607-974-7235 fax 607-974-7468

Natural Resources Ressources naturelles Canada Canada 

# Valerie Whelan Residential, Regulatory and Information Programs 580 Booth Street, 16th Floor Ottawa, Ontario K 1 A OE4 (613) 947-1207 Fax (613) 943-1590 Internet valeriewhelan8es nrcango ca 

## ANDREW J. STRENIO, JR. ATTORNEY AT LAW

HUNTON & WILLIAMS 2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W

SUITE 9000 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 AREA CODE 202 TELEPHONE 955-1500 DIRECT DIAL 955-1639 FACSIMILE 778-2201 E-MAIL astreni6Rhunton.com


## The Alliance to Save Energy 1725 K Street, 'NEW. Suite 509 Washington, D.C. 20006-1401

7'17h1-n171 ;1 /(tllCf^tg I 

## Phone: 202/857-0666 Fax: 202/331-9;58
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-Q FINANCIAL REPORT OF ENERGY RESERVE, INC. AS SUBMITTED TO THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JANUARY 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         778,162
<SECURITIES>                                    64,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,131,316
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    801,033
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,606,251
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,340,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          924,774
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    20,041,562
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,877,003
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,340,058
<SALES>                                      1,857,294
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,857,294
<CGS>                                          923,552
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,790,160
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,397
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,615
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 63,737
<INCOME-TAX>                                       830
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             67,134
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    62,907
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .003
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .003
        

</TABLE>
No. 12-7986.

#### Morrow *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
1

Werner, Christopher

From: Werner, Christopher

Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 5:26 PM

To: 'Szabo, Aaron'

Cc: Lorang, Phil; Jones, Rhea; Beaver, Melinda; Marks, Matthew; Anderson, Lea; VanLare, 

Paula; Greenglass, Nora; Smith, Kristi; Palma, Elizabeth; Wood, Anna; Harnett, Bill

Subject: EPA responses to Interagency Comments

Attachments: 03_08_2016 40 CFR Part 51 clean with OMB changes RLSO.docx; 03_08_2016 EPA 

RESPONSES to Summary of Interagency Comments under EO12866_E013563_Regional 

Haze_2060-AS55_NPRM.docx; 03_08_2016 NPRM with OMB changes RLSO to preamble 

and line edits.docx

Categories: Regional Haze

Aaron, 

In preparation for tomorrow’s 10 AM interagency call, attached please find 3 documents, as follows: 

1) Response-to-comments document containing EPA’s responses to additional interagency comments received 

3/7/2016; 

2) Redline strikeout of NPRM showing changes from version first provided to OMB; 

3) Redline strikeout of rule text, again showing changes from first version provided to OMB. 

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, 

Chris Werner 

US EPA – Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Air Quality Policy Division 

(919) 541-5133 

werner.christopher@epa.gov
No. 12-8034.

#### Anaya-Santiago *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-792.

#### Dibbs *v.*Mazzarelli et al.

C. A. 2d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Don Juan Kelty, Appellant.

[767 NYS2d 824]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weber, J.), rendered October 9, 2002, convicting him of criminal contempt in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted (see *Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Altman, J.P, S. Miller, McGinity, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.
No. 12-8076.

#### Beltran *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Baby B.W., Matter of (Tracy B.H.)

4th Dept: 148 AD3d 1786

denied*
No. 12-8117.

#### Jones *v.*McDaniel et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 103 (Friday, May 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 29433]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14206]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration
[TA-W-34,537]


Newell Company, ACME Frame--a/k/a Intercraft, Harrisburg, AR; 
Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on May 11, 1998 in response to a worker petition which 
was filed on May 1, 1998 on behalf of workers at the Acme Frame, 
Harrisburg, Arkansas. The notice will soon be published in the Federal 
Register.
    An active certification covering the workers of Newell Company, 
Acme Frame--a/k/a Intercraft, Harrisburg, Arkansas is already in effect 
(TA-W-34,378B). Consequently, further investigation in this case would 
serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.


    Signed in Washington, D.C. this 15th day of May, 1998.
Grant D. Beale,
Acting Director, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 98-14206 Filed 5-28-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
|                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                        
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                  
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                  
|View History:                                                                   
|                                                                                
|Cove Point, MD Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Netherlands (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                
|                                                                                
|Cove Point, MD Liquefied Natural Gas Exports to Netherlands (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 6,465 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 13,417 | 6,742  | 27,513 | 21,477 |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
#### COM. v. CRUZ, D.

1872 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

08/25/2017

CP-22-CR-0005534-2013 (Dauphin)

Affirmed
No. 12-7055.

#### Cantillo Burgos *v.*United States.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                         454,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  943,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    54,000
<INVENTORY>                                    137,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,641,000
<PP&E>                                       7,819,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,332,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,180,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,247,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       137,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,769,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,180,000
<SALES>                                      1,689,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,689,000
<CGS>                                        1,279,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  376,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (6,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              36,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>
No. 12-8526.

#### Russell *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 12-7469.

#### Marshall *v.*Keffer, Warden.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 164 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.164
                       One Hundred Third Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America


                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
  the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three


                                 An Act

  
 
  To authorize the adjustment of the boundaries of the South Dakota 
portion of

   the Sioux Ranger District of Custer National Forest, 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. SIOUX RANGER DISTRICT BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT.

    (a) In General.--In accordance with the Act entitled ``An Act to 
consolidate national forest lands'', approved March 20, 1922 (16 U.S.C. 
485 et seq.), and in exchange for national forest lands in Custer 
National Forest, the Secretary of Agriculture may accept title to any 
lands located within 5 miles of the exterior boundaries of the South 
Dakota portion of the Sioux Ranger District of Custer National Forest 
that are not owned by the United States and that are found by the 
Secretary of Agriculture to be chiefly valuable for national forest 
purposes.
    (b) Incorporation Into Custer National Forest.--Upon acceptance of 
title by the Secretary of Agriculture, lands conveyed to the United 
States in accordance with subsection (a) shall become part of Custer 
National Forest.







                                Speaker of the House of Representatives.







                             Vice President of the United States and    
                                                President of the Senate.`
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: Clay Givens v. All Pro Courts, LLC d/b/a Court Builder of Houston 

and Christopher Walker

Appellate case number: 01-12-00874-CV

Trial court case number: 2010-01121

Trial court: 80th Judicial District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: November 18, 2013

Party filing motion: Appellant All Pro Courts, LLC d/b/a Court Builder of Houston

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting Individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Jennings, Sharp, and Brown. 

Date: December 19, 2013
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 1849

To require the Federal Government to incarcerate or to reimburse State

and local governments for the cost of incarcerating criminal aliens.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

FEBRUARY 10 (legislative day, JANUARY 25), 1994

Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. D’AMATO, Mr. MACK, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr.

BRYAN, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. MCCAIN, and Mrs. HUTCHISON) introduced the

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

A BILL

To require the Federal Government to incarcerate or to

reimburse State and local governments for the cost of

incarcerating criminal aliens.

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 ‘‘Criminal Aliens Fed5 eral Responsibility Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. INCARCERATION OF OR PAYMENT FOR CRIMINAL

7 ALIENS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

8 (a) DEFINITION.—In this section, ‘‘criminal alien

9 who has been convicted of a felony and is incarcerated in
2

•S 1849 IS

1 a State or local correctional facility’’ means an alien

2 who—

3 (1)(A) is in the United States in violation of the

4 immigration laws; or

5 (B) is deportable or excludable under the Immi6 gration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.);

7 and

8 (2) has been convicted of a felony under State

9 or local law and incarcerated in a correctional facil10 ity of the State or a subdivision of the State.

11 (b) FEDERAL CUSTODY.—At the request of a State

12 or political subdivision of a State, the Attorney General

13 shall—

14 (1)(A) take custody of a criminal alien who has

15 been convicted of a felony and is incarcerated in a

16 State or local correctional facility; and

17 (B) provide for the imprisonment of the crimi18 nal alien in a Federal prison in accordance with the

19 sentence of the State court; or

20 (2) enter into a contractual arrangement with

21 the State or local government to compensate the

22 State or local government for incarcerating alien

23 criminals for the duration of their sentences.

Æ