alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO.  07-02-0239-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL E

	DECEMBER 3, 2002

	______________________________

	BRENDA KAY WILSON, APPELLANT

	V.

	DORRIS CARLTON WILSON, JR., APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE 316TH DISTRICT COURT OF HUTCHINSON COUNTY;

	NO.  34,736; HONORABLE STEVEN R.  EMMERT, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.  and BOYD, S.J.*

OPINION ON MOTION TO DISMISS

	The trial court rendered judgment in this cause in favor of appellee Dorris Carlton Wilson, Jr. on February 25, 2002.  Appellant timely filed her notice of appeal from that  Judgment and filed an indigence affidavit in connection with the appeal.  A contest to the indigence affidavit filed by the court reporter and appellee Dorris Carlton Wilson, Jr. was sustained by the trial court on June 14, 2002.  Although appellant has filed an indigency motion in this court, we are bound by the trial court’s fact finding.

	Although four motions for extension of time for filing the clerk’s and reporter’s records have been granted by this court, with the last such extension being granted to October 8, 2002, neither the clerk’s nor the reporter’s records have been filed because the necessary deposits for the preparation of those records have not been made.

	Both the trial court clerk and the court reporter are responsible for preparing, certifying, and timely filing their records.  Tex. R. App. P. 35.3.  However, neither of them is responsible for preparing and filing the record unless a timely notice of appeal has been filed and satisfactory arrangements have been made to pay the fee for the preparation of the record.  Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)and (b); In re Marriage of Spiegel, 6 S.W.3d 643, 646 (Tex.App.–Amarillo 1999, no pet.).

	Appellant’s failure to perform the steps necessary to obtaining a record for our perusal  after repeated extensions of time is indicative of a failure to adequately prosecute this appeal.  This is particularly true in view of the trial court’s ruling refusing to find she is indigent.

	Accordingly, this appeal must be and, it is hereby dismissed.  Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), 42.3(c).

							John T.  Boyd

							Senior Justice

Do not publish.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 50204 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
SERGIO OLIVEROS

- MARTINEZ , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:13

- CR

- 388

- 5

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The attorney appointed to represent Sergio Oliveros

- Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Oliveros

- Martinez h a s not f iled a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that , even if the appeal waiver is not enforced

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 8, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-50204 Document: 00513108433 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2015No. 14

- 50204

2 against Oliveros

- Martinez, the appeal presents no nonfrivolou s issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 14-50204 Document: 00513108433 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2015
# C_2022109EN.01000701.xml

| 7.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 109/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 109/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 January 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — ‘MONO’ SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-326/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Excise duties - Directive 2008/118/EC - Exemption from the harmonised excise duty - Goods intended for use in the context of diplomatic or consular relations - Conditions for the application of the exemption laid down by the host Member State - Payment by means other than cash)

(2022/C 109/09)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant:‘MONO’ SIA

Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Operative part of the judgment

Article 12 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as precluding the host Member State, where it lays down conditions and limits for the application of the exemption from excise duty on goods used in the context of diplomatic and consular relations, from making the application of that exemption subject to the condition that the purchase price of those goods be paid by means of payment other than cash.

---

(1)  OJ C 329, 5.10.2020.

---
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Faranak ESFAHANI, et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-4635

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 20, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Brian METROCAVAGE and Shary, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. The BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON METROCAVAGE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-5074

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 18, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2024 ND 173

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Georgia Littlebird, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20240050

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial 

District, the Honorable James S. Hill, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Isaac O. Lees, Assistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, N.D., for plaintiff and 

appellee; on brief.

Kiara C. Kraus-Parr, Grand Forks, N.D., for defendant and appellant; on brief.
1

State v. Littlebird

No. 20240050

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Georgia Littlebird appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury 

convicted her of aggravated assault. On appeal, Littlebird argues that the district 

court erred by failing to instruct the jury on voluntary intoxication. She also 

argues that there was insufficient evidence to support her conviction because the 

State did not prove she acted with the requisite culpability due to her 

intoxication.

[¶2] Littlebird did not preserve the issue of the district court’s failure to instruct 

the jury on voluntary intoxication, because she objected to the inclusion of 

intoxication instructions at trial. When the district court asked Littlebird if she 

objected to the two voluntary intoxication instructions proposed by the State, 

Littlebird responded: “Correct.” It is clear on the face of the record that Littlebird 

affirmatively objected to the inclusion of an intoxication instruction, and as such, 

she waived the alleged instructional error. State v. Houle, 2022 ND 96, ¶ 7, 974 

N.W.2d 401. After review of the record, we conclude that there was sufficient 

evidence to support the jury’s verdict. We summarily affirm the judgment under 

N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶3] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte

Douglas A. Bahr
Tony NAPOLI, Appellant, v. BUREAU OF STATE EMPLOYEE'S W/C CLAIMS/ THE DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, and Division of Risk Management, Appellees.

No. 1D18-2437

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

November 30, 2018 Rehearing Denied January 3, 2019

Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for Appellant.

William H. Rogner of Hurley, Rogner, Miller, Cox & Waranch, P.A., Winter Park, and Stephen M. Armstrong of Stephen M. Armstrong, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellees.

Jay, J.

Claimant appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims ("JCC") denying his motion to enforce a mediation agreement that the Employer/Carrier ("E/C") would provide "the requested bed." Instead of providing the brand of bed specified on the prescription-which was not *450incorporated by reference in the agreement-the E/C attempted to deliver a different brand. We affirm the JCC's finding that there was no meeting of the minds and, therefore, no agreement to enforce.

Claimant, as the party seeking to enforce the agreement, had the burden to prove that both parties meant the same thing when they formed their contract. *Cheverie v. Geisser* , 783 So.2d 1115, 1119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ("The burden is on the 'party seeking judgment on the basis of compromise and settlement' to establish assent by the opposing party." (quoting *Nehleber v. Anzalone* , 345 So.2d 822, 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) ) ). But Claimant was unable to convince the JCC that the agreement was founded on a meeting of the minds, because the JCC admitted and accepted parol evidence that the E/C thought the phrase "the requested bed" meant any bed satisfying the doctor's requirements as set forth in that doctor's deposition-which took place before the mediation, constituted an amendment to the physician's written prescription, and involved both parties' counsel.

Parol evidence is admissible to resolve a contract's ambiguity only where that ambiguity is latent. *See generally**Landis v. Mears* , 329 So.2d 323, 325-26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) ("Florida courts have adhered to the distinction [between patent and latent ambiguities] and ordinarily allow parol evidence where there is a latent ambiguity and reject it where there is a patent ambiguity."). "[T]he fact that the parties 'read the same document and came to opposite, but equally reasonable conclusions, confirms the document's latent ambiguity.' " *Quillen v. Quillen* , 247 So.3d 40, 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (quoting *Toussaint v. Toussaint* , 107 So.3d 474, 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ). Given the timeline of events, the parties' readings of the phrase "the requested bed" were equally reasonable.

Accordingly, the JCC did not err in admitting, or relying on, parol evidence. That evidence supports the JCC's ruling.

AFFIRMED .

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Bilbrey, J., concur.
Walter Leroy CORBETT, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

No. 1D17-4635

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 25, 2019

Walter LeRoy Corbett, pro se, Petitioner.

Kenneth S. Steely, General Counsel, and Gayla Grant, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

B.L. Thomas, C.J., and Bilbrey and Jay, JJ., concur.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_maps(3)
              - products_publications(7)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149195(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - arizona(3)
              - california(3)
              - connecticut(1)
              - delaware(3)
              - district of columbia(3)
              - florida(1)
              - hawaii(5)
              - kentucky(1)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - montana(2)
              - nevada(2)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(1)
              - new york(1)
              - north carolina(1)
              - (-)pennsylvania(1)
              - rhode island(1)
              - south dakota(2)
              - utah(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(1)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wisconsin(4)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        April 8, 2024        USGS Northeast Region: The Short Story
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH 

	NO. 2-03-380-CV

IN RE MANFREDO WINDISCH-GRAETZ	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator's “Petition For Writ Of Mandamus,” relator’s “Emergency Motion To Stay Order Requiring Deposition Pending Consideration Of Petition For Mandamus,” and real party in interest Bell Helicopter’s “Response To Emergency Motion To Stay Order And Emergency Motion To Require Bond Pursuant To TRAP 52.10(b).”  It is the court’s  opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator's petition for writ of mandamus and emergency motion are denied.  The real party in interest’s emergency motion to require bond is denied as moot.  

	Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let execution issue.					

								PER CURIAM

PANEL B:	HOLMAN, DAUPHINOT, and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  December 31, 2003
Randy AVON III, Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Successor by Merger to Lasalle Bank National, Association as Trustee for Ramp 2007RP4, Appellee.

No. 4D18-429

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 17, 2019]

Philippe Symonovicz of Law Offices of Philippe Symonovicz, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Michael P. De Simone and Steven J. Brotman of Locke Lord LLP, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gross, May and Damoorgian, JJ., concur.
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 678 

Providing for the consideration of the bill (S. 815) to prohibit employment 

discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2014 

Mr. POLIS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Providing for the consideration of the bill (S. 815) to prohibit 

employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. 

1 Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this res2 olution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in 

3 the House of the bill (S. 815) to prohibit employment dis4 crimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender 

5 identity. All points of order against consideration of the 

6 bill are waived. The amendment described in section 2 

7 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall 

8 be considered as read. All points of order against provi9 sions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 

10 question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 678 IH 

1 amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 

2 passage without intervening motion except one hour of de3 bate equally divided and controlled by the chair and rank4 ing minority member of the Committee on Education and 

5 the Workforce and one motion to recommit. 

6 SEC. 2. The amendment described in this section is 

7 an amendment to S. 815 to strike section 6 of the bill 

8 and insert the following: 

9 ‘‘SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. 

10 ‘‘This Act shall not change the requirements of title 

11 VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et 

12 seq.), pursuant to section 702(a) or 703(e)(2) of such Act 

13 (42 U.S.C. 2000e–1(a), 2000e–2(e)(2)), applicable to a re14 ligious corporation, association, educational institution, or 

15 society with respect to the employment of individuals of 

16 a particular religion to perform work connected with the 

17 carrying on by such corporation, association, educational 

18 institution, or society of its activities. Such organizations 

19 are not exempt from the requirements of this Act to re20 frain from discrimination based on sexual orientation or 

21 gender identity, in the same manner as is required with 

22 respect to discrimination based on race, color, sex and na23 tional origin under such title.’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 678 IH 

1 SEC. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to 

2 the consideration of S. 815. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(13)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - multimedia_image(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(2)
              - multimedia_video(12)
              - multimedia_video-149194(6)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149197(3)

## By Location

              - (-)arizona(3)
              - california(3)
              - colorado(2)
              - hawaii(1)
              - idaho(2)
              - maine(1)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - montana(2)
              - nevada(2)
              - new mexico(2)
              - north dakota(2)
              - oregon(2)
              - south dakota(3)
              - texas(2)
              - utah(2)
              - washington(2)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

How to's and trainings        October 28, 2014        Measuring Water Levels in a Flowing Well

How to's and trainings        June 11, 2020        Land Treatment Exploration Tool — Step 5: Select Search Parameters

How to's and trainings        June 11, 2020        Land Treatment Exploration Tool — Step 6: Compare the LTDL Treatments
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




In
connection with the Quarterly Report of United Energy Corp. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James McKeever,
Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:




(1)           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 result of operations of the Company.







Dated:
      February 17, 2009
              By:
              /s/ James McKeeverJames McKeeverInterim Chief Financial
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 30, 2024.                    

      ( print page 106626)    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 20, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 1184 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-979, K2025-978.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-31162 Filed 12-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 7, 2014

No. 04-13-00871-CV

Alonzo Foster BALL, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

LaVaughn LEWIS,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-CI-05112

Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant Alonzo Foster Ball Jr., acting pro se, filed a notice of appeal. He complains 

that the trial court improperly denied his wife’s motion to dismiss a family violence protective 

order. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 85.001 (West 2014). After he filed his notice of appeal, he 

also filed an affidavit of indigence.

On January 22, 2014, we abated this cause and remanded it to the trial court to determine 

whether Appellant is indigent and his appeal is frivolous. In response, the trial court held a 

hearing on February 24, 2014, and vacated its earlier protective order. Thus, in this case, there 

does not appear to be a final, appealable order.

Our appellate jurisdiction is limited to review of final, appealable orders. See Lehmann v. 

Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001) (noting that generally “an appeal may be taken 

only from a final judgment”). 

We ORDER Appellant Alonzo Foster Ball Jr. to show cause in writing within TEN 

DAYS of the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. If Appellant does not timely show 

cause why this court has jurisdiction over this appeal, the appeal will be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a); Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195.

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.
_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 7th day of March, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
##### Table of Contents



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 Washington, D.C. 20549
 FORM 8-K
 CURRENT REPORT
 Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
 Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)          July 12, 2006 (July 10, 2006)
 Fentura Financial, Inc.
   
  0-23550
    
    38-2806518(Commission File Number)
    
    (IRS Employer Identification No.)
 175 North Leroy StreetP.O. Box 725Fenton, Michigan
    
    48430-0725(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    (Zip Code)
 (810)
629-2263
  o
 o
 o
 o




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 8.01 Other EventsItem 9.01 Financial Statements and ExhibitsSIGNATURESEXHIBIT INDEXPress Release, dated July 10, 2006    Table of Contents  
 Item 8.01 Other Events.
  
 Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
 (d)
    
    Exhibits.
 Exhibit Number99.1
    
    Press Release, dated July 10, 2006.
 2




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURES
  FENTURA FINANCIAL, INC.
          (Registrant)By:
    /s/Ronald L. JusticeRonald L. Justice, SVP-CorporateGovernance & Investor Relations  3




---



##### Table of Contents



EXHIBIT INDEX
 Exhibit Number99.1
    
    Press Release, dated July 10, 2006
 4
Jayson KALINOWSKI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-800

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 14, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.