alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Rashard Donte RIVERS, DOC #C00890, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3834

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Order filed September 21, 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00743

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF D .W. JR, A CHILD

On Appeal from the 246th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017

- 48742A



### ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of the parent

- child relationship is at issue. The appellant is the Texas Department of Fam ily and Protective Services (“the Department”). The Department’s brief was due September 19 , 2018. 1 No brief has been filed.
Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed.

1 The Department’s brief in the companion appeal, No. 14

- 18

- 00742

- CV, is not yet due because the reporter’s record has not been filed.2

See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (effective May 1, 2012). This accelerated schedule requires greater compliance with briefing deadlines.
If the Department does not file a brief by October 1 , 2018 , we will dismiss the appeal f

or lack of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1).

PER CURIAM
Jerry L. RICE, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 81688

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: July 30, 2019

Damien de Loyola, District Defender, Kansas City, MO, Attorney for Appellant.

Eric S. Schmitt, Attorney General, and Mary H. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Before Division Four: Karen King Mitchell, Chief Judge, and Gary D. Witt and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judges

**Order**

Per Curiam:

*864Jerry Rice appeals the denial, following an evidentiary hearing, of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Rice raises a single claim on appeal; he argues that the motion court erred in rejecting his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to use testimony from the State's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Fisher, during closing argument to challenge the credibility of the State's key witness. Finding no error, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
Entrustment
Purchase Agreement

    Contract
No.: ¥SJH-09-01

    


    Entrusting
Party: Beijing Jianxin Shihua Technology Development Co., Ltd. (“Party
A”)

    Entrusted
Party: Petrochemical Engineering Ltd. (“Party B”)

    


    According
to Article 16, 18 and 20 of Procurement Law of People’s Republic of China and
other related laws and regulations, Party A entrusts Party B to carry on the
purchase service, Party A and Party B have reached the following
agreements:

    


    Article 1
Party A entrusts Party B to carry on the purchase of two sets of tower bottom
coke unloading valve and one set of liquid pressure control system.

    


    Article 2
The specific requirements of the entrustment:

    a. Time of the purchase: before July
15, 2009

    b. Special supplier requirements:
designates U.S. DELTAVALVE BUSINESS UNIT OF CURTISS-WRIGHT FLOW CONTROL COMPANY
as the supplier.

    c. Other requirements: as specified in
the Technical Agreement of Tower bottom Coke Unloading Valve of Delayed Coking
Devise of Petrochina Quanzhou 1.6 million metric ton/ year Project

    


    Article 3
Party A shall provide main articles of the draft purchase agreement, including
but not limited to, the content of the goods, time, location, method of
examination, method of payment and breach liability, to Party B before Party B
starts its purchase activity so that Party B can make the corresponding purchase
agreement. (The specific content of this article shall be provide to Party B by
Party A in writing)

    


    Article 4
Party A shall wire the purchasing fund into an account designated by Party B
within three business days before Party B starts its purchase activity,
otherwise, Party B may not carry on the purchase. If the purchase fund can not
be wired into the account in time due to certain special situations, Party A
shall submit an application to Party B and Party B may start purchase activity
after it approves Party A’s application.

    


    Article 5
When Party A makes payment to supplier, it shall issue an Entrustment Payment
Notification to Party B. Party B shall examine the performance of the purchase
agreement within five business days after it receives the notification. If the
performance meets the requirements as specified in the purchase agreement and
distribution agreement, Party B shall issue Entrustment Payment Notification to
the Procurement Office and make the payment.

    


    Article 6
This project shall be examined by the purchaser or purchase center.

    


    Article 7
Party A and Party B shall actively and cooperatively finalize related issues
unspecified in this agreement.

     

    
      
         

      

      
         

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

     

    Article 8
The agreement shall be effective after Party A and Party B affix their seals to
this agreement. The agreement shall have two copies. Each party shall have one
copy.

    


    


    
      
        
          
            
              	
                      Party
      A(seal):

                    	 
      	 
      	
                      Party
      B (seal):
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 786 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 786

  Calling for an immediate deescalation and cease-fire in Israel and 
                          occupied Palestine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 16, 2023

Ms. Bush (for herself, Ms. Tlaib, Mr. Carson, Ms. Lee of Pennsylvania, 
Mrs. Ramirez, Mr. Bowman, Mrs. Watson Coleman, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, 
Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, Ms. Omar, Ms. Pressley, and 
           Ms. Velazquez) submitted the following resolution

                            October 25, 2023

              Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Calling for an immediate deescalation and cease-fire in Israel and 
                          occupied Palestine.

Whereas all human life is precious, and the targeting of civilians, no matter 
        their faith or ethnicity, is a violation of international humanitarian 
        law;
Whereas, between October 7 and October 16, 2023, armed violence has claimed the 
        lives of over 2,700 Palestinians and over 1,400 Israelis, including 
        Americans, and wounded thousands more;
Whereas hundreds of thousands of lives are at imminent risk if a cease-fire is 
        not achieved and humanitarian aid is not delivered without delay; and
Whereas the Federal Government holds immense diplomatic power to save Israeli 
        and Palestinian lives: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) urges the Biden administration to immediately call for 
        and facilitate deescalation and a cease-fire to urgently end 
        the current violence; and
            (2) calls upon the Biden administration to promptly send 
        and facilitate the entry of humanitarian assistance into Gaza.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                             593776
<SECURITIES>                                       205865
<RECEIVABLES>                                    60743678
<ALLOWANCES>                                       456061
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        0
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   65083023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   0
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          7054028
<OTHER-SE>                                        2049047
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     65083023
<SALES>                                           6948857
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  7250537
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2521747
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   423612
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3086850
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   1218328
<INCOME-TAX>                                       422200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                796128
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                       796128
<EPS-BASIC>                                         .59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .49


</TABLE>
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3874 — CVC/Ruhrgas Industries)

(2005/C 191/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

----
Duane Cordell SEALS v. STATE

CR-15-0113

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 9, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 57 (Thursday, March 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 13200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6790]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Correction notice.

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

SUMMARY: On March 20, 2009 the U.S. Department of Education published a 
comment period notice in the Federal Register (Page 11291, Column 3) 
for the information collection, `` Feasibility and Conduct of an Impact 
Evaluation of Title I Supplemental Education Services''. This notice 
amends the responses to 22,260 and the burden hours to 2,139. The IC 
Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office 
of Management, hereby issues a correction notice as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    Dated: March 23, 2009.
Angela C. Arrington,
IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, 
Office of Management.
[FR Doc. E9-6790 Filed 3-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-193775) pertaining to the 2010 Equity Incentive Plan, 2014Equity Incentive Plan and 2014 Employee Stock Purchase Plan of Auspex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our report dated March 28, 2014, with respect to the financial statements of Auspex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. included in this Annual Report(Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2013. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

San Diego, California 

March 28, 2014
B. W., Mother of K. W.-S, Minor Child, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D17-2451

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
----

Action brought on 30 December 2004 by Arturo Ruiz Bravo-Villasante against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-507/04)

(2005/C 115/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 December 2004 by Arturo Ruiz Bravo-Villasante, residing in Madrid, represented by Jose Luis Fuertes Suárez, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in these proceedings contests the decision of the selection board in Competition COM/B/2/02, excluding him, as a result of the marks awarded in his oral test, from the list of candidates finally selected.

In that respect, the applicant requested the chairman of the selection board to review his oral test; the chairman replied that the selection board had confined itself in his case to applying the assessment criteria (‘grille d'évaluation’) used for all the candidates and that the manner in which the selection board had applied the classification procedure was protected by the requirement of confidentiality.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of transparency and disregard of what constitutes a ‘document’, for Community purposes, basing its decision to exclude the applicant on an existing document (la grille d'évaluation), the contents of which are not specified and which remain confidential.

----
John SIZEMORE v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES

CR-15-1317

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 9, 2016

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00321-CR

Cindy Watson

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR16001098-G

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 18, 2022
* This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. §

46(d).

** Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40067 Conference Calendar

MARCUS TAYLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CAROL VANCE ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 9:95-CV-365

- - - - - - - - - - February 11, 1999 Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. *
PER CURIAM: ** Marcus Taylor, Texas prisoner # 544599, filed a prisoner civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) Board Chairman Carol Vance, TDCJ Director Wayne Scott, Warden James Shaw, Major A.E. Hickson, Captain Mark Tomblin, and Sergeant Billy Fly. Taylor alleged that the defendants were aware that he was in danger from other inmates and took no action to protect him. Taylor alleged thatNo. 98-40067 -2- he and other inmates were strip-searched and placed in handcuffs and leg irons to be transported on a prison bus. While on the bus, several of the inmates escaped from their restraints and beat Taylor causing a head wound requiring 23 stitches. The parties consented to proceed before the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge found that Taylor had “failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendants knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of harm to the plaintiff.” A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.
Gunaca v. Texas , 65 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 1995). Prison officials have a duty under the Eighth Amendment to protect inmates from violence at the hands of other prisoners.
Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 833 (1994). However, not every injury "by one prisoner at the hands of another . . . translates into constitutional liability for prison officials responsible for the victim's safety." Farmer , 511 U.S. at 834. Taylor has failed to submit evidence showing that the defendants knew or should have known that placing him on the bus posed a substantial risk of harm to him. Taylor has at most alleged negligence on the part of unnamed guards in searching the other inmates on the bus. Also, prison officials had already segregated Taylor from any other inmates that were attempting to harm him. With respect to Taylor’s claim that he was verbally threatened by a prison guard, he has failed to state a constitutional violation. The magistrate judge did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment because there is no genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial.No. 98-40067 -3-
AFFIRMED.
Cleveland WEAVER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D16-5341

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed October 10, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
p. 1


# OAR Box 1784 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 59 ) ll-D-1 1 Docket Number; 

# A-84-4 4

Printed 10/31/20088:05:40AM Sheet 59of 143P. 2



# 1 3 PENWAL

T CORPORATIO N PENNWAL TBUILDING , THRE E PARKWAY , PHILADELPHIA , PENNSYLVANI A1910 2

CHEMICAL S •EQUIPMEN T•HEALT H PRODUCTS

Novembe r 19 , 198 5

Mr . WilliamLarryElmore , P.E . Unite d State s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning an d Standard s Researc hTriangl e Park , NC 2771 1 Dea r Mr . Elmore : Th e informatio n yo u requir e o n Methyldiethanolamin e (MDEA ) follow s th e basi c patter n o f comparison s use d fo r ga s scrubbing amines . On e suc hcompariso n i s include d o n pag e 10 9 o f th e Marc h198 2 issu e o f Hydrocarbo n Processing . Wher e comparison s cal l fo r arbitraryvalue s relative t o othe r amines , th e value s o n pag e 10 9 wil l b e use d a s a basis . Th e informatio n i s a s follow s fo r MDEA . Molecula r Weigh t Basicit y(reactivity ) Capacit y(scf/gal ) Corrosivity : design limitation s Stripping Character : C0 2 (Btu/lb ) H_S(Btu/lb ) Hydrocarbo n Solubility : MDE Ai n liq . H C ga s H C i n MDE A Solven t losse s (lbMDEA/MMsc f o f gas ) Reclaiming Reboile r Temperatur e a t 1 2 psi g Therma l Propertie s Hea t capacit y

G180° F (Btu/lb°F ) L/ Rexchange r hea t trans , coeff . (Btu/hr ) Therma l Stabilit y Freezing Poin t (a t typica l sol' n cone. ) Cos t ($/lb ) 11 9 4 2-1 0 20-50 % solutio n 0.25-0.7 5 m/ m

55 0

Availabilit y Application : 45 0 1 1 

### h-h Non e Require d 24 5 0.9 0
Verygoo d 

### -5° F 1.1 0 i n bul k (no . o f majo r U.S . suppliers ) 3 pressur e ove r 10 0 psi g fo r natura l specificatio n limi t o n capacit y gas , bu t n o lowe r limi t fo r tai l ga s clean u p (TGCU )

WRITER' S DIRECTDIA L NUMBER : (215) 587-755 0P. 3

Mercapta n Remova l Chemica l Degradation : H_S C0 „ CO S -2
-

Non e

N o effec t N o effec t N o effec t I hop e thi s informatio n wil l hel p yo u i n you r evaluations . I f I ca n b e o f an

yfurthe r assistance , pleas e fee l fre e t o contac t me . Verytrul yyours , 

# L. PEMNW/&T , CORPORATION Christi e Technica l Servic e Industria l Chemical s CBJ/sm b
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6920** 

MATTHEW DETZLER , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. KIM COX, Treatment Program Supervisor , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for th e Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria
. Gerald Bruce Lee , District Judge. ( 1:10

- cv - 00552

- GBL

- TCB )

Submitted : September 28 , 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per cur iam opinion
.
Matthew Detzler, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Matthew Detzler appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b ) (200 6 ). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Detzler v. Cox , No. 1:10

- cv - 00552

- GBL

- TCB (E.D. Va. June 11, 2010) . We dispense with oral argument because the fact s and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 28, 2009 

s0921 

Order 

 

September 28, 2009 

139213 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139213 

 COA: 283164 

Wayne CC: 07-010558-FC 

LEONDRE LAVON WALKER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
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 Carroll Shelby International Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Luft, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|Date: August 18, 2003 |  |  |  | /s/JOHN LUFTJohn Luft, President
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------

---

QuickLinks