alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### George SPITTAL, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant, and Michael Young; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-17527.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2004.*

Decided May 18, 2004.

George Spittal, Sacramento, CA, pro se.

Michael W. Pott, Porter, Scott, Weiberg *&*Delehant, for Defendant-Appellees.

Before CANBY, KOZINSKI, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

George Spittal appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from a dispute with school officials regarding student discipline. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. *202§ 1291. We review de novo the district court’s summary judgment, *Frost v. Agrios,*152 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.

Spittal’s contention that Local Rule 72-302(c)(21) for the Eastern District of California unlawfully extends the jurisdiction of magistrate judges in violation of due process or 28 U.S.C. § 636 lacks merit because an Article III judge reviewed de novo all dispositive motions. *See Bhan v. NME Hospitals, Inc.,*929 F.2d 1404, 1414 (9th Cir.1991).

Summary judgment was proper essentially for the reasons expressed in the district court’s opinion of September 27, 2002.

Spittal’s remaining contentions lack merit.

Robert J. Cassinelli’s motion to file an amicus curiae brief is granted. The clerk shall file the brief received April 18, 2003.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
October 15, 2015

Mr. Nicholas Miller

1321 Newbridge Drive

Lockport, IL 60441

Dear Mr. Miller :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

part 21 and § § 91.203(a)(b), 45.23(b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 91.417(a)(b),

61.113(a)(b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b), 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, and 91.151(a) of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It exp lains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We received your June 18, 2015

, exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 3196

, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemptio n.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
Order entered August 9, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00969-CV

BRIGETTA D'OLIVIO A/K/A BRIGETTA ALIX ANDERSON, ALIX 

BRIGETTA, Appellant

V.

HILARY THOMPSON HUTSON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-04855-2019

ORDER

On July 19, 2021, we granted appellant’s second emergency motion for 

permission to extend time to file her amended brief; ordered Janet L. Dugger, 

Official Court Reporter for the 296th Judicial District Court, to file by July 26th a 

corrected record appellant had requested; and ordered appellant to file her amended 

brief by August 2nd. Our order was based on appellant’s statements in her motion 

that she (1) sought the extension, in part, because the reporter’s record is incorrect,

having what appeared to be formatting errors, (2) had requested Ms. Dugger file a 
corrected record, and (3) anticipated Ms. Dugger would file the corrected record 

“forthwith.” 

The corrected record has not been filed to date, and by emergency motion 

filed August 3, 2021, appellant requests we “compel” Ms. Dugger to file the record 

and extend the deadline for filing the amended brief. In this motion, appellant 

states in a footnote that, in motions to correct the reporter’s record, she noted that 

the record (a) was “missing two (2) transcripts,” (b) has “wrong style and cause 

number,” (c) has “two (2) different dates for hearing in single transcript,” (d) has 

“evidence attributed to appellee [that] was submitted by appellant,” and (e) has a 

master index that is incorrect, etc.” 

We note that, from a review of the motions appellant has filed in the Court, 

the motions to correct the reporter’s record appear to be motions that were 

referenced in appellant’s May 6, 2021 amended emergency motion to extend time 

to file brief and were filed in the trial court after we denied appellant’s April 8, 

2021 “challenge to the record,” in relevant part, because it made only general 

assertions. We further note that nothing before the Court reflects the trial court has 

ruled on the motions, and since the filing of appellant’s August 3rd emergency 

motion, Ms. Dugger has filed a letter stating the record she filed is “certified and 

correct to the best of [her] ability” and no corrected record will be filed. 

Accordingly, to the extent appellant asks the Court to “compel” Ms. Dugger to file 
a record that corrects the “errors” noted above, we DENY the motion. We 

GRANT the extension request to the extent we ORDER appellant to file the 

amended brief no later than August 19, 2021. We caution appellant that further 

extension requests will not be granted absent exigent circumstances. 

/s/ BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN

JUSTICE
Order entered January 30, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-01288-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF BRIAN MATSUO SAKIMA, DECEASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-11-03677-2

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s January 28, 2019 second motion to extend time to file a

brief. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to February 04, 2019. We caution appellant 

that further requests for extension of time will be disfavored. 

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL

JUSTICE
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 Energy

###### Bonneville Power Administration

# AGENCY:

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), Department of Energy (DOE).

# ACTION:

Notice of Record of Decision (ROD).

# SUMMARY:

This notice announces the availability of the ROD to offer contract terms for interconnection of up to 200 megawatts of wind generation from the Iberdrola Renewables, Inc.'s proposed Leaning Juniper II Wind Project into the Federal Columbia River Transmission System. This decision is consistent with and tiered to BPA's Business Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/EIS-0183, June 1995), and the Business Plan Record of Decision (BP ROD, August 15, 1995). The wind project will be interconnected at BPA's Jones Canyon Switching Station (SS), about three miles southwest of Arlington, Gilliam County, Oregon. The Jones Canyon SS will provide the wind project with transmission access to BPA's McNary-Jones Canyon 230-kilovolt transmission line and the Jones Canyon-Santiam 230-kilovolt transmission line.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Copies of the ROD and EIS may be obtained by calling BPA's toll-free document request line, 1-800-622-4520. The ROD and EIS Summary are also available on our Web site,                         *http://www.efw.bpa.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

                        Andrew M. Montaño, Bonneville Power Administration—KEC-4, P.O. Box 3621, Portland, Oregon 97208-3621; toll-free telephone number 1-800-622-4519; fax number 503-230-5699; or e-mail                         *ammontano@bpa.gov*.                    

Issued in Portland, Oregon, on April 3, 2009.

Stephen J. Wright,

Administrator and Chief Executive Officer.

[FR Doc. E9-9094 Filed 4-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2881 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass snow globes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 8, 2012 

Mr. BAUCUS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain glass snow 

globes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN GLASS SNOW GLOBES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Glass snow globes, valued 

over $0.30 but not over $3 

each, the foregoing not constituting festive articles (provided for in subheading 

7013.99.50) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2881 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
1

The Honorable Ortrie D. Smith, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1222

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri.

* 

Christopher T. Brown, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: October 15, 2007

Filed: October 26, 2007

___________

Before BYE, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Brown pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) & 924(a)(2) and was sentenced to ninety-seven

months of imprisonment. In calculating the advisory guideline range, the district

court1

 applied both a four-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

(U.S.S.G.) § 2K2.1(b)(5) (2005) after finding Brown possessed the firearm in

connection with another felony offense, and a six-level enhancement under U.S.S.G.

§ 3A1.2(c)(1) (2005) after finding Brown created a substantial risk of serious bodily
-2-

injury by firing his weapon at a law enforcement officer. Both enhancements were

based on the same conduct, Brown's act of firing his weapon at Officer Holsworth

while fleeing on foot. 

On appeal, Brown contends the district court erred in finding he fired his

weapon at the officer, claiming the gun accidentally discharged after he tried to throw

it in a dumpster where it hit the top of the dumpster and fell to an asphalt surface.

Brown also contends the district court engaged in impermissible double-counting

when it applied both enhancements based on the single act of firing the weapon while

fleeing the officer.

Reviewing the district court's findings of fact for clear error, United States v.

Finck, 407 F.3d 908, 913 (8th Cir. 2005), we see no basis for reversal. The

government presented sufficient evidence through the testimony of Officer Holsworth

and the cross-examination of Brown's firearm expert, Richard Post, for the district

court to reject Brown's claim of accidental discharge and to find he fired the weapon

at the officer. In addition, Brown's double-counting contention is foreclosed by

United States v. Fleming, 8 F.3d 1264, 1266-67 (8th Cir. 1993) (approving the use of

enhancements under both § 2K2.1 and § 3A1.2 based upon a fleeing defendant's act

of shooting at an officer while possessing a firearm).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
Ex Parte Robert

PerezAppellant/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 13, 2014

No. 04-14-00080-CV

EX PARTE Robert PEREZ

Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On February 10, 2014, relator filed a supplemental petition for writ of habeas corpus. The

court has considered relator’s supplemental petition and is of the opinion that relator is not

entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, relator’s supplemental petition for writ of habeas

corpus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

It is so ORDERED on February 13th, 2014.

_____________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 13th day of February, 2014.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2006EM502404, styled In the Interest of N.P., et al., Children, pending in

the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Jim Rausch presiding.

FILE COPY
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

16 January 2006

(2006/C 11/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Arturo Petriciolet v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 12

- 00920

- CR

Trial court case number: 1344112

Trial court: 228th District Court of Harris County

On May 6, 2013, appellant’s counsel, Cheri Duncan, hand

- filed a brief on appellant’s behalf. On May 7, 2013, while the Clerk of this Court was still processing appellant’s brief, the Court issued an order abating this case and remanding for a hear ing in the trial court. The order of abatement was based on counsel’s failure to file a brief on appellant’s behalf for more than 120 days after the original deadline for filing a brief. Appellant has now filed a motion to lift abatement, requesting that we “lift the abatement order so the appeal can proceed and so counsel can continue to represent Appellant.”

Based on the filing of appellant’s brief, we GRANT appellant’s motion. Accordingly, we withdraw our previous order, reinstate this appeal on the C ourt’s active docket, and order the State’s brief, if any, be filed within 30 days of the date of this order. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: May 16, 2013
Exhibit 99.1
                                 ------------


                      COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING LP


                             OFFICERS' CERTIFICATE
                    ANNUAL STATEMENT OF THE MASTER SERVICER


                                  CWMBS, INC.
                    CHL MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH TRUST 2004-23
              MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2004-23


        The undersigned do hereby certify that they are each an officer of
Countrywide GP, Inc., general partner of Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP (a
"Master Servicer"), and do hereby further certify pursuant to Section 3.16 of
the Pooling and Servicing Agreement for the above-captioned Series (the
"Agreement") that:

        (i)   A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the
        preceding calendar year and of the performance of the Master Servicer
        under the Agreement has been made under our supervision; and

        (ii)  To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master
        Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement
        throughout such year.




/s/ Joseph M. Candelario                                Dated: March 28, 2005
------------------------

JOSEPH M. CANDELARIO
FIRST VICE PRESIDENT



/s/ Mark Wong                                           Dated: March 28, 2005
-------------

MARK WONG
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Steve Bolton, President, Chief Executive
Officer, Secretary and Treasurer of Carolyn River Projects Ltd., hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the annual report on Form 10-K of Carolyn River Projects
      Ltd. for the period ended May 31, 2010 (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 Carolyn River Projects Ltd.                                                            

Dated: August 24, 2009

| | /s/Steve Bolton                                           
| | ----------------------------------------------------------
| | Steve Bolton, President, Chief Executive
      Officer,   
| | Secretary and Treasurer                                   
| | (Principal Executive Officer and Principal
      Financial
| | Officer)                                                  

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Carolyn River
Projects Ltd. and will be retained by Carolyn River Projects Ltd. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
AGREEMENT
                                   ---------


This Agreement, dated August 29, 2007, is between Enexco, Inc. ("Enexco"), 3131
Turtle Creek, Suite 1210, Dallas, Texas 75219 and Colony Energy, Inc.
("Colony"), 2100 West Loop South, Suite 900, Houston, Texas 77027,

WHEREAS; Enexco has purchased or contracted for the properties, more
particularly described in Exhibit "A" which is attached to this agreement and
made a part hereof and Colony has agreed to advance monies (Lease Bank) to
acquire these properties on the following terms and conditions:

     1.     The total consideration for the purchase of these properties amounts
            to the amount as shown on Exhibit A.
     2.     Enexco has asked and Colony has agreed to advance Sixty-Five Percent
            (65.00%) of these monies or $ Two Hundred Seventeen Thousand, Four
            Hundred and Twelve Dollars and Thirty-one Cents ($217,412.31) for
            the purchase of the prospect leases.
     3.     Enexco has agreed that Colony has the right but not the obligation
            to participate in all of the prospects for up to a Twenty-Five
            Percent (25.00%) promoted working interest.
     4.     Enexco agrees that it has built in certain cash profits in each
            prospect and agrees to share these profits on a Seventy-Five Percent
            (75.00%) basis to Enexco and a Twenty-Five Percent (25.00%) basis to
            Colony.
     5.     It is agreed that the Lease Bank money and the funds provided from
            Enexco will be paid on the same basis as funds were provided that is
            Colony will receive 65.00% and Enexco will receive 35.00% until all
            monies have been paid.
     6.     It is further agreed that both parties will expend their best
            efforts to raise the necessary funds to have the wells drilled
            before the end of the year 2007.  (See attached 2007 Enexco Drilling
            Schedule)
     7.     It is agreed that Enexco will hold title to the properties in their
            name on behalf of and for Colony and Enexco.

Should this be our agreement please sign in the space provided below.

Agreed to this 29th day of August, 2007.

Colony Energy, Inc.                         Enexco, Inc.

/s/ Jimmy D. Wright                         /s/ C. Noel Rather
-------------------                         ---------------------------
By: Jimmy D. Wright                         By: C. Noel Rather