alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 

### NUMBER 13 - 15 - 00088 - CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

TRINITY RINGELSTEIN , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 148 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.



## ORDER
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes Order Per Curiam
This cause is before the Court on the preparation of the reporter’s record which was originally due on March 2, 2015 , but has not yet been filed . The reporter’s record in this cause was apparently prepared by four different court reporters: Sandra Chavez ,2

Blanca Espericueta, Sara Rivera, and Velma Arellano. Court reporters Sandra Chavez and Blanca Espericueta have filed several requests for extension of time to file their portions of the record. This Court has previously granted Sandra Chavez’s third re quest, extending her deadline to file the record until August 20, 2015. Currently pending before the Court is Blanca Espericueta’s fourth extension request. According to Espericueta’s extension request, her portion of the record has not yet been paid in full. Reporters Sara Rivera and Velma Arellano have neither filed their portions of the record nor filed requests for extensions to do so. The documents currently before the Court do not reflect whether they have received payment for their portions of th e reporter’s record or not. The Court, having fully examined and considered the extensions previously granted in this cause and the status of the record , is of the opinion that, in the interest of justice, an order should be entered. The Court looks with disfavor upon the delay caused by the reporters ’ failure to have heretofore fil ed the record in this matter. However, in the interests of justices, we GRANT Espericueta’s extension until August 20, 2015, and

we ORDER all of the reporters to file the ir por tions of the reporter ’ s record by August 20,
2015. The Court will not look favorably upon any further or additional requests for extensions. If the reporter’s records have been paid for but not filed by August 20, 2015, the Court will act appropriately to avoid further delay and to preserve the parties ’ rights.
T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3 (a)(2). If the reporters have not received full payment for the records, they shall so notify the Court and the parties promptly. Where the clerk’s record has been filed b ut the reporter’s record has not been filed, the appellate court may

— after first giving the appellant notice and a reasonable3

opportunity to cure

— consider and decide those issues that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision when the appellant has not paid for the record and is not indigent. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(c). This order serves as notice to appellant regarding this defect and provides appellant with an opportunity to cure any failure to pay for the record. See id.

PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b). De livered and filed t he 14 th day of July , 20 15

.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-10888

Marsha Jackson, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

City of Dallas, 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:20-CV-967

Before Clement, Graves, and Costa, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

After an illegal shingle recycling facility operated on an industrially 

zoned lot next to her home, Marsha Jackson brought an equal protection 

claim against the City of Dallas for its alleged racially discriminatory zoning 

scheme. The district court dismissed Jackson’s claim pursuant to Monell v. 

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) because Jackson failed to 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 15, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-10888 Document: 00516357822 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/15/2022
No. 21-10888

2

plausibly allege the City’s zoning policy was the moving force behind the 

illegal shingle operation. Specifically, because Jackson alleged the shingle 

operation violated the City’s zoning policy and the deed restrictions the City 

placed on the lot, the district court concluded there was not a plausible causal 

connection between the policy and the alleged constitutional violation. See 

Mason v. Lafayette City-Par. Consol. Gov’t, 806 F.3d 268, 280 (5th Cir. 2015)

(“The ‘moving force’ inquiry imposes a causation standard higher than ‘but 

for’ causation.” (citation omitted)). Having reviewed Jackson’s allegations 

de novo, we conclude there is no reversible error in the district court’s 

analysis. And much of Jackson’s argument in this court focuses on a theory 

of discrimination—that the City’s initial decision to zone the land for 

industrial use was racially motivated—that was not advanced in the district 

court and is thus forfeited. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

Case: 21-10888 Document: 00516357822 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/15/2022
No. 09-8897.

#### Juan M. Perez Cardenas, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 997, 130 S. Ct. 1752,

176 L. Ed. 2d 222,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2219.

March 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 569 F.3d 1263.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                               0001066849
<NAME>                                      SITE2SHOP.COM, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                          U.S. DOLLAR

<S>                                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                           1
<CASH>                                              352,141
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1,468,994
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (49,275)
<INVENTORY>                                          20,765
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1,843,931
<PP&E>                                            1,429,134
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (518,291)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    2,889,819
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4,599,764
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON>                                             12,515
<OTHER-SE>                                      (1,722,460)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      2,889,819
<SALES>                                           1,983,735
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1,983,735
<CGS>                                               612,207
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       612,207
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1,780,487
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     49,275
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    8,634
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (466,868)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (169,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (297,868)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (297,868)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.02)



</TABLE>
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C., as Assignee of Davis-Vaughan, Felecia, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Hertz Co., Appellant. </font></b></div><br><br><p>Robyn M. Brilliant, P.C. (Robyn M. Brilliant and Barry Montrose of counsel), for appellant.The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Joy F. Campanelli, J.), entered January 24, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, upon denying plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment, made, in effect, CPLR 3212 (g) findings in plaintiff's favor.</p><p>ORDERED that the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, with $25 costs.</p><p>In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that there was no coverage due to the fact that the assignor, a resident of New York, was not an eligible injured person since she had been a passenger in a rental car which had been involved in a motor vehicle accident in New Jersey and neither the assignor, nor any member of her household, owned a vehicle in New York. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. Defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court dated January 24, 2018 as denied defendant's motion and, upon denying plaintiff's cross motion, made, in effect, CPLR 3212 (g) findings in plaintiff's favor.</p><p>The papers that defendant submitted in support of its motion failed to establish, as a matter of law, that the assignor was not entitled to receive benefits pursuant to Insurance Law ยง 5103 (a) (3) and, therefore, the Civil Court properly denied defendant's motion for summary judgment. </p><br>Moreover, defendant failed to articulate a sufficient basis to strike the Civil Court's findings in plaintiff's favor (<a href="../2014/2014_50786.htm" target="_blank"><i>see EMC Health Prods., Inc. v Geico Ins. Co.</i>, 43 Misc 3d 139</a>[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50786[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2014]).<p>Accordingly, the order, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed.</p><p>WESTON, J.P., ALIOTTA and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.</p><br>ENTER:<br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: January 31, 2020<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
## THE ATKTORNEE- GENERAL. **UB)F %-EXAS** 

Mr. Jesse M. Irwin, Jr. Commissioner for Rehabilitation Texas Rehabilitation Commission 1301West 38th Street Austin, Texas 78705 Dear Mr. Irwin: Opinion No.M-1222 Re: Determination of eligibility of maternity leave

You request our opinion onwhether an unmarried female employee of the Texas Rehabilitation Commission is entitled to take sick leave, with pay, for thepurpose ofmaternity leave. Article V, Section 7b, of the General Appropriations Act of the 62nd Legislature (SenateBill 1,Acts 62nd Leg., 3rdC. S., 1972), in its relevant portion, reads as follows:

II

. . .An employee is entitled to take sick leavewith pay only when he or a member of his immediate family is actually ill, and in the case of female employees, for thepurposes ofmaternity leave." (Emphasis added) The Appropriations Act provides that female employees are entitled to sick leavewith pay for the purposes of maternity leave. The Act itself is so clear that it does not admit to an interpretation or a construction.

It is therefore our opinion that a female employee is entitled tomaternity leave with pay for thenumber of days that shehas accumulated as sick leavewithout regard toher marital status. SUMMARY

A female employee isentitled to maternity leavewith pay for the number of days that shehas accumulated as sick leave without regard to hermarital status.
-5992-Mr. Jesse M. Irwin, Jr., page 2 (M-1222)

Prepared by Linward Shivers Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Kerns Taylor, Chairman W. E. Allen, Co-Chairman Linda Neeley James H. quick Harriet Burke Sally Phillips SAMUEL D. MCDANIEL Staff Legal Assistant ALFRED WALKER Executive Assistant NOLA WHITE First Assistant

-5993-
No. 09-7793.

#### Roy Lee Ward, Petitioner v. Indiana.

559 U.S. 1038, 130 S. Ct. 2060,

176 L. Ed. 2d 417,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2815.

March 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Indiana denied.

Same case below, 903 N.E.2d 946.
No. 09-9055.

#### Abdul Muhammad, Petitioner v. Illinois.

559 U.S. 1074, 130 S. Ct. 2103,

176 L. Ed. 2d 733,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3365.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, denied.

Same case below, 381 Ill. App. 3d 1138, 359 Ill. Dec. 284, 966 N.E.2d 605.
Order entered October 19 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 16 - 00950 - CV IN THE INTEREST OF H .S., A MINOR CHILD On Appeal from the 302nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF - 13 - 22239 - U



### O RDER The Court has before it appellee the State of Texas’s October 14, 2016, First Motion to Extend Time to File Brief. We GRANT the motion. Appellee’s brief is to be file on or before October 2 1, 2016

. /s/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 226 (Friday, November 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 70093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28133]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee--Closed 
Session

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee 
Special Closed Session.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), notice is 
hereby given of a special closed session of the Commercial Space 
Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC). The special closed session 
will be an administrative session for the Committee members to review 
the provisions of the COMSTAC Charter; the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (FACA); 41 CFR, Parts 101-6 and 102-3; and the Department of 
Transportation and FAA Orders concerning advisory committee management. 
The meeting will take place on Wednesday, December 11, 2013, at the 
National Housing Center, 1201 15th Street NW., Washington, DC 20005, 
from 2:00 p.m. until 3:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Scott (AST-3), Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation (AST), 800 Independence Avenue SW., 
Room 331, Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-7982, email 
larry.scott@faa.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC, November 15, 2013.
George C. Nield,
Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2013-28133 Filed 11-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
No. 09-9608.

#### Luis Ceballos, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1081, 130 S. Ct. 2125,

176 L. Ed. 2d 747,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3180.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 355 Fed. Appx. 226.
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4674 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 3, 2006 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 110 North Chestnut Street in Olathe, Kansas, 

as the ‘‘Governor John Anderson, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

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


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
2 

HR 4674 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 110 North Chestnut Street in Olathe, Kansas, 

4 shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Governor John An5 derson, Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘Governor John Anderson, Jr. Post Office Build11 ing’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 2, 2006. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
No. 09-9122.

#### Daryl Dennison, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1042, 130 S. Ct. 2074,

176 L. Ed. 2d 423,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2763.

March 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 352 Fed. Appx. 658.
<PAGE>


                                                               Exhibit 24(i)



                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

         The undersigned does hereby appoint G. Peter D'Aloia, J. Paul McGrath
and Gary J. Van Domelen as his true and lawful attorneys to sign American
Standard Companies Inc. (the "Company") Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2002, and any amendments thereto, on behalf of the
undersigned as a director and as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and to
file the same, with any exhibits thereto, with the Securities and Exchange
Commission; each of said attorneys shall have the power to act hereunder with or
without the others.


Date: February 6, 2003                      /s/ FREDERIC M. POSES
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Frederic M. Poses
FMMI Ridgeline

04-007-0009

16382 Invalid 3-month average due to data capture and insufficient number of samples.

January * 5 5 100.00000 0 0.14900000 33 0.15

February ** 5 5 100.00000 0 0.03520000 67 0.09

March 5 4 80.00000 0 0.01325000 93 0.07

April 5 5 100.00000 0 0.01160000 93 0.02

May 5 5 100.00000 0 0.02240000 93 0.02

June 5 4 80.00000 0 0.01325000 93 0.02

July 5 5 100.00000 0 0.02020000 93 0.02

August 5 5 100.00000 0 0.02520000 93 0.02

September 5 5 100.00000 0 0.00840000 100 0.02

October 5 5 100.00000 0 0.00820000 100 0.01

November 5 5 100.00000 0 0.02360000 100 0.01

December 6 5 83.33333 0 0.05980000 94 0.03

January 5 5 100.00000 0 0.04660000 94 0.04

February 4 4 100.00000 0 0.06800000 94 0.06

March 6 5 83.33333 0 0.03720000 94 0.05

April 5 5 100.00000 0 0.01400000 94 0.04

May 5 5 100.00000 0 0.01040000 94 0.02

June 5 5 100.00000 0 0.00420000 100 0.01

July 5 5 100.00000 0 0.02600000 100 0.01

August 5 5 100.00000 0 0.06560000 100 0.03

September 5 5 100.00000 0 0.03860000 100 0.04

October 5 5 100.00000 0 0.05340000 100 0.05

November 5 5 100.00000 0 0.11660000 100 0.07

December 5 5 100.00000 0 0.01540000 100 0.06

January 6 5 83.33333 0 0.03460000 94 0.06

February 4 4 100.00000 0 0.01175000 94 0.02

March 6 6 100.00000 0 0.01133333 94 0.02

April 5 5 100.00000 0 0.01060000 100 0.01

May 5 5 100.00000 0 0.04660000 100 0.02

June 5 5 100.00000 0 0.01100000 100 0.02

July 5 5 100.00000 0 0.03820000 100 0.03

August 5 2 40.00000 0 0.04550000 80 0.03

September 5 5 100.00000 0 0.01506000 80 0.03

October 5 5 100.00000 0 0.02360000 80 0.03

November 5 5 100.00000 0 0.07820000 100 0.04

December 5 5 100.00000 0 0.05020000 100 0.05

0.07

* January 2006 DV is not complete as there are no data for November and December 2005.

** February 2006 DV is not complete as there are no data for December 2005.

Pb-PM10 - Standard Conditions 3-Year Summary Statistics

Last Updated 8/25/2009

Invalid 3-month average due to data capture

Year Month

No. of 

Possible 

Samples

No. of 

Creditable 

Samples

Monthly 

Data 

Capture 

(%)

No. of 

Extra 

Samples

Monthly 

Average 

Lead 

(ug/m^3)

2008

2006-2008 Design Value = 

^ Data Capture <75% and does not pass the above NAAQS test, so this is not a valid 3-

month average.

3-Month 

Data 

Capture 

(%)

3-Month 

Average 

Lead 

(ug/m^3)

Max 

3-Month 

Average

2006-2008 DESIGN VALUES

2006

2007
DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

January 26, 2024

TO: Katherine R. Herrera, Acting Technical Director

FROM: Frank Harshman and Clinton Jones, Resident Inspectors

SUBJECT: Oak Ridge Activity Report for Week Ending January 26, 2024

Board Visit: Chair J. Connery, staff member D. Andersen, and the resident inspectors 

conducted site visits to the Y-12 National Security Complex, Transuranic Waste Processing 

Center (TWPC), and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). At Y-12, the Chair met with the 

NPO site office leadership and CNS senior managers. CNS provided an overview of 2023 

nuclear criticality safety issues and corrective actions, conduct of operations improvement 

initiatives, and an overview of the aging management program including an update on the

Extended Life Program. During the visit, the Chair and staff walked down Buildings 9204-2E, 

9212, 9215, Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility (HEUMF), Uranium Processing 

Facility (UPF), and the new emergency operations center. In Building 9212, the walkdown 

included casting operations, the processing area where two briquette fires occurred (see 

02/24/2023 and 08/11/2023 reports), and reduction operations. In Building 9215, the walkdown 

included machining operations, the machine coolant system, electrorefining, the site of the 

nuclear criticality safety violation that led to a site-wide fissile material handling pause (see 

05/05/2023 report), and the future location for the direct chip melt project. At HEUMF, the 

Chair and staff conducted a general walkdown of the building and discussed the future interface 

of UPF with HEUMF, including process flow, with CNS management. At UPF, the Chair and 

staff members were provided a status update of the project followed by a walkdown of the 

construction site. At TWPC, the Chair and staff meet with UCOR executive leadership who 

provided an overview of site operations and a walkthrough of the facilities. At ORNL, the Chair 

and staff meet with Isotek Systems executive leadership and walked down Building 2026, 

observing operations in the process hot cells. OREM and Isotek staff provided an update of the 

U-233 Initial Processing Campaign and the path forward for the disposition of the remaining 

material in Building 3019.
No. 09-9700.

#### Eddy Oliver Lopez-Lopez, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1084, 130 S. Ct. 2131,

176 L. Ed. 2d 751,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3245.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 357 Fed. Appx. 587.