alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 01-15-00341-CV

IN THE

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

Houston, Texas 

 

ELIZABETH A. LOUSTEAU AND BRETT CLANTON

Defendants/Appellants, 

v. 

JAIME L. NORIEGA AND SONIA A. NORIEGA

Plaintiffs/Appellees. 

 

Appeal from the 151st Judicial District Court

Harris County, Texas 

No. 2013-35448 

 

APPELLANTS' MOTION TO EXPEDITE RULING ON NOTICE OF DISMISSAL AND 

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

 

 

Marianne G. Robak, TBA 24048508 

 Email: mgrobak@law-crg.com

 1770 St. James Place, Suite 150 

 CERSONSKY, ROSEN & GARCIA, P.C. 

 Houston, Texas 77056 

 Tel: (713) 600-8500; FAX (713) 600-8585 

 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS,

ELIZABETH A. LOUSTEAU AND BRETT 

 CLANTON. 

 

 

ACCEPTED

01-15-00341-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

8/25/2015 1:56:56 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 8/25/2015 1:56:56 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Appellants are awaiting rulings on two matters: (1) The Court's Notice of Intent to 

Dismiss; and (2) Appellants' Motion to Consolidate. The Motion to Consolidate was filed on July 

10, 2015 and was not opposed. Appellants' Response to the Court' Notice of Intent to Dismiss 

was filed on July 27, 2015. No response in opposition to Appellants' Response was filed by 

Appellees. The Court has made no rulings on either motion. Appellants need rulings on these 

motions before they can file their brief because they need guidance from the Court on how to 

style the briefs if consolidated, how to reference the clerk's records if consolidated, and whether 

to include arguments relating to cause number 01-15-00254-CV in the appeal to be filed in this 

matter. The due date for the appeal in both this case and cause number 01-15-0254-CV are due 

August 27, 2015. If this Motion is not granted, Appellants will need to file an additional 

extension, as the briefs should not be filed without a ruling on these two material matters. 

Therefore, Appellants respectfully request that the rulings on both motions be expedited and 

ruled on before the August 27, 2015 deadline for filing the Appellants' Brief.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marianne G. Robak

Marianne G. Robak, TBA No. 24048508

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was forwarded to 

all counsel of record on this 25nd day of August, 2015, as follows: 

Via electronic filing manager

Sarahjane “SJ” Davidson Swanson

Swanson Law Firm, PLLC

310 Main, Ste. 201

Houston, TX 77056

/s/ Marianne G. Robak

Marianne G. Robak
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LONE STAR SECURITY & VIDEO,

INC.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 12-56279

D.C. No. 2:03-cv-05346-AHM-RC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 5, 2014** 

Pasadena, California

Before: GOULD and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and ENGLAND, Chief District

Judge.

*** 

FILED

JUN 30 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

 *** The Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief District Judge for the

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, sitting by designation.
Lone Star Security & Video (“Lone Star”) appeals the district court’s

dismissal of this case after that court determined that Lone Star had not preserved a

number of its claims and that no issues remained to be resolved. 

I.

There is no authority for Lone Star’s contention that our reversal of the

district court’s original summary adjudication order, see Lone Star Sec. & Video,

Inc. v. City of L.A., 584 F.3d 1232 (9th Cir. 2009), reset the proceedings and

effectively nullified the Final Pretrial Conference Order (“FPTC Order”). The

FPTC Order remains in effect. If Lone Star wished to preserve certain claims, it

had an affirmative duty to make that intention clear to the district court. See

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Because Lone Star failed to comply with that duty, it waived those claims not

disposed of by the motion for summary judgment and not included in the FPTC

Order.

II.

Lone Star also did not seek modification of the order and does not argue, let

alone demonstrate, that it would suffer manifest injustice if the FPTC Order is not

modified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); see also Johnson, 975 F.2d at 608. The

district court’s decision regarding “the pretrial phase of [this] litigation” was

2
clearly within its “broad discretion.” Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364,

369 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing FDIC v. Glickman, 450 F.2d 416, 419 (9th Cir. 1971)).

AFFIRMED.

3
Order filed March 26, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00146-CV

____________

IN THE ESTATE OF ESTANISLADA RODRIGUEZ, DECEASED

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 3

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-CPR-025070

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed February 19, 2019. To date, the 

filing fee of $205.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant is excused by 

statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying costs has been filed. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 5. Therefore, the court issues the following order.

Appellant Terry Garcia is ordered to pay the filing fee of $205.00 to the clerk 

of this court on or before April 5, 2019. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant fails to 

timely pay the filing fee, the appeal will be dismissed.

PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5186]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-65,251]


The H.B. Smith Company, Westfield, MA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    In accordance with Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended, an investigation was initiated on February 13, 2009 in 
response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers 
of The H. B. Smith Company, Westfield, Massachusetts.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of March 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E9-5186 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
No. 08-1529.

#### Esther Hui, et al., Petitioners v. Yanira Castaneda, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Francisco Castaneda, et al.

559 U.S. 932, 130 S. Ct. 1499,

176 L. Ed. 2d 105,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1034.

February 19, 2010.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT In re : ADINA ZAHAR

ESC U, De

btor, ADINA ZAHAR

ESC U, Appe lla

nt, v. AM E R IQUEST M OR TGAGE C OM PANY; AM ER IQUEST M OR TGAGE SEC UR ITIES, INC ., Appe lle e s. No. 13-56339 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-09773-C AS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia C hristina A. Sny de r, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d April 22, 2015 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, B YB EE, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# F IL ED APR 30 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Adina Za h are sc u a ppe a ls pro sefrom

the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision a ffirm ing the b ankruptc y c ourt’ s dismissa l of he r a d ve rsary proc e e ding a lle ging viola tions of sta te an d fe de ra l la

w in c onne c t ion with fore c losure proc e e d ings. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 158(d). W e re vie w inde p e nde ntly the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s de c ision without de fe re nc e to the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm inations. Le ic hty v . N e ary (In reStrand) , 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th C i r. 2004). W e m ay a ffirm the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s de c ision on a

ny ground supporte d by

the re c ord. Olse n v . Ze rbe t z (In reOlse n) , 36 F.3d 71, 73 (9th C ir. 1994). W e a ffirm . Zaha re sc u’ s c la im s a ga inst a

ppe lle e s we re prope rly

dism isse d be c a

use those c la im s we re ra ise d a

nd de c ide d on them e rits, or c ould ha v e be e n ra ise d, in he r prior distric t c ourt a c tion a ga inst thesa m e de fe nda

nts or the ir privie s. Se eUnite d State s v . Liquidators of Europe an Fe d. C re dit Bank

, 630 F.3d 1139, 1150 (9th C i r. 2011) (se tting forth e le m e nts of re s judic ata re q uire m e nts a

nd fa c tors for e sta blishing ide

ntity of c la im s); Tahoe

–Sie rra Pre

s. C ounc il, Inc . v . TahoeRe

g’l Planning Agenc

y , 322 F.3d 1064, 1081 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ [A] dism issa l on sta tute of lim ita tions grounds is a judgm e nt on them e rits.” ). W e re je c t Za h are sc u’ s c onte ntions c onc e rning theim pa c t of he r obje c tion to proofs of c l a im

file d in a nothe r bankruptc y

proc e e ding. AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 5 6 3 3 9 2
Judy TOMPKINS, Plaintiff, v. Christine LAUGHLIN and Susan Sellers Brillhart, Defendants.

No. COA18-1191

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 3, 2019

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6538

ANTHONY SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICES COMPANY, Nestle USA, PC Claims Department, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-99-394-2) Submitted: August 5, 1999 Decided: August 11, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Anthony Smith appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing as frivolous his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint.We have reviewed the record and the district’s opinion and dismissal order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Smith v. Constitution State Servs. Co. , No. CA-99-394-2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
**CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC REPORT****PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**(18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350)
I, Sherice P. Bench certify that:
1. I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of American Achievement Corporation and AACGroup Holding Corp.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this quarterly report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrants as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;
4. The registrants’ other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)) for the registrants and have;
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrants, including their consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;
b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants’ disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation;and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants’ internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrants’ most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants’ internal control overfinancial reporting;
5. The registrants’ other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants’ auditors and the auditcommittee of registrants’ respective board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants’ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrants’ internal control over financial reporting.
Date:August 5, 2005         By:             /s/ SHERICE P. BENCH    Sherice P. Bench    CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32(B)

   CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER RELATING TO A
                PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

     I, Arthur Winkleblack, Director, Vice President, Chief Financial and
Accounting Officer of H. J. Heinz Finance Company, a Delaware corporation
("Heinz Finance"), hereby certify that, to my knowledge:

     1. Heinz Finance's periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
        October 29, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q") 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
        Heinz Finance.

Date: December 8, 2003

                                          By:   /s/ ARTHUR B. WINKLEBLACK
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Name: Arthur B. Winkleblack
                                              Title: Director, Vice President,
                                            Chief
                                                Financial and Accounting Officer
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6541] 

Renewal of Advisory Committee. The Department of State has renewed the Charter of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy. The Committee serves in a solely advisory capacity concerning major issues and problems in international economic policy. The Committee provides information and advice on the effective integration of economic interests into overall foreign policy and on the Department of State's role in advancing American commercial interests in a competitive global economy. The Committee also appraises the role and limits of international economic institutions and advises on the formulation of U.S. economic policy and positions. 

This Committee includes representatives of American organizations and institutions having an interest in international economic policy, including representatives of American business, labor unions, public interest groups, and trade and professional associations. The Committee meets at least annually to advise the Department on the full range of international economic policies and issues. 

For further information, please call Nancy Smith-Nissley, Senior Coordinator, Office of Economic Policy Analysis and Public Diplomacy, Economic, Energy and Business Affairs Bureau, U.S. Department of State, at (202) 647-1682. 

March 2, 2009. 

Sandra Clark, 

Director, Office of Economic Policy Analysis and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs, Department of State.

 [FR Doc. E9-5072 Filed 3-9-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
----

Exhibit 32.2 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

The undersigned, Hailan Xu, the Chief FinancialOfficer and Treasurer of SENTAIDA TIRE COMPANY LIMITED (the "Company"), DOHEREBY CERTIFY that: 

1.     The Company’s QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008 (the "Report"), fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and 

2.     Information contained inthe Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operation of the Company. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned hasexecuted this statement this 13th day of August 2008. 

/s/ Hailan Xu                                                 Hailan Xu Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer) 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Sentaida Tire Company Limited and will beretained by Sentaida Tire Company Limited and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

The forgoing certification is being furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission pursuant to §18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It isnot being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing ofthe Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral incorporation language in such filing. 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4849 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4849

To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide that individuals who 
  are eligible to join the Armed Forces of the United States are also 
              eligible to be security screening personnel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 2006

  Mr. Owens introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 49, United States Code, to provide that individuals who 
  are eligible to join the Armed Forces of the United States are also 
              eligible to be security screening personnel.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 
44935(e)(2)(A)(ii) of title 49, United States Code, is amended to read 
as follows:
                            ``(ii) to be eligible to be a security 
                        screener if the individual is eligible to join 
                        the Armed Forces of the United States;''.
                                 <all>
```
No. 09-10113.

#### Samson Aldaco, Petitioner v. United States.

560 U.S. 916, 130 S. Ct. 3302,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1204,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3978.

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
1

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00006-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.C.R. AND B.B.N.N., CHILDREN

----------

FROM THE 362ND DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

On June 18, 2010, we notified appellant K.D.R. that her brief had not been 

filed as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.6(a). See Tex. R. App. 

P. 38.6(a). We stated we could dismiss her appeal for want of prosecution unless 

appellant or any party desiring to continue this appeal filed with the court within ten 

days a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 

42.3. We have not received any response.2

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

2Appellant’s counsel previously informed this court by letter that K.D.R. did 
2

Because appellant=s brief for K.D.R. has not been filed, we dismiss her

appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: July 15, 2010

 

not wish to pursue the appeal but that counsel would not be filing a motion to 

dismiss or a brief for K.D.R. The letter says it was copied to “Client.”
No. 08-1332.

#### City of Ontario, California, et al., Petitioners v. Jeff Quon, et al.

559 U.S. 1047, 130 S. Ct. 2366,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2956.

176 L. Ed. 2d 560,

April 5, 2010.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted. Motion of The Rutherford Institute for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted.