alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SE PTEMBER 16, 2015

NO. 03

- 15

- 00441

- CV

Youth Empowerment Services, Inc. d/b/a Higgs Carter King Gifted and

Talented Charter Academy, Appellant

v.

Texas Education Agency, and Michae l Williams, in his Official Capacity as the

Commissioner of Education, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM 345TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES PEMBERTON A ND FIELD

DISMISSED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal fro m the order signed by the district court on July 14, 2015

. Appellant has filed

a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees that the

motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the appeal

. The

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0 134 IN THE MATTER OF: O.L.K., Respondent and Appellant
. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including March 1 , 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 23 2023

01/23/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0134
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: July 28, 2016 522446 

________________________________

In the Matter of JAMES CHAO,

Petitioner,

v

MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT

TIMOTHY HOLLINGSHEAD, as 

Correction Lieutenant at 

Sullivan Correctional

Facility, et al.,

Respondents.

________________________________

Calendar Date: June 6, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Lynch, Devine and Aarons, JJ.

__________

James Chao, Fallsburg, petitioner pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J.

Mastracco of counsel), for respondents.

__________

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this

Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Sullivan County)

to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and

Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty of violating

certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding

challenging a prison disciplinary determination. The Attorney

General has advised this Court that the determination has been

administratively reversed, all references thereto have been

expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory

$5 surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's inmate account. 

Although petitioner seeks to be restored to the status he enjoyed

prior to the disciplinary determination, including reinstatement
-2- 522446 

to his prison job and back pay, "inmates have no constitutional

or statutory right to their prior housing or programming status"

(Matter of Hamilton v Bezio, 93 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2012]; see

Matter of Folk v Annucci, 122 AD3d 977, 978 [2014]). Given that

petitioner has received all of the relief to which he is

entitled, the petition must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of

Hill v Annucci, 136 AD3d 1081, 1082 [2016]; Matter of Folk v

Annucci, 122 AD3d at 978).

Peters, P.J., Garry, Lynch, Devine and Aarons, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without

costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
# C_2020443EN.01000501.xml

| 21.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 443/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 443/5

---

Appeal brought on 8 September 2020 by Welmax + sp. z o. o. sp.k. against the judgment delivered on 8 July 2020 in Case T-305/19 Welmax + v EUIPO — Valmex Medical Imaging (welmax)

(Case C-425/20 P)

(2020/C 443/07)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Appellant: Welmax + sp. z o. o. sp.k. (represented by: M. Machyński, radca prawny)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office

By order of the Vice-President of the General Court of 30 October 2020, the appeal was dismissed as inadmissible.

---
# C_2022051EN.01001301.xml

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Delfarma sp. z o.o. v Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych

(Case C-488/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 34 and 36 TFUE - Free movement of goods - Measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction - Medicinal products for human use - Parallel import of medicinal products - Legislation of a Member State under which a parallel import licence is to expire automatically after one year from the expiry of the marketing authorisation for the reference medicinal product - Protection of the health and life of humans - Proportionality - Directive 2001/83/EC - Pharmacovigilance)

(2022/C 51/16)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Delfarma sp. z o.o.

Defendant: Prezes Urzędu Rejestracji Produktów Leczniczych, Wyrobów Medycznych i Produktów Biobójczych

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 34 and 36 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a parallel import licence for a medicinal product expires automatically after one year from the expiry of the marketing authorisation of reference, without carrying out an examination whether there is any risk to the health and life of humans. The fact that parallel importers are exempt from the obligation to submit periodic safety reports is not a ground which may per se justify the adoption of such a decision.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---
Jose Luis GARCIA SOLAR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1714

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 6, 2019]

Jose Luis Garcia Solar, Okeechobee, pro se.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*956*Affirmed* .

Gerber, C.J., and Taylor, J., concur.

Forst, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.

Forst, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I respectfully dissent in part. Appellant was not afforded an evidentiary hearing on any of the claims raised in his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. I agree with the majority in finding no error in the trial court summarily denying six of the seven claims. However, I would remand for an evidentiary hearing with respect to Appellant's contention that counsel's failure to move to exclude incriminating evidence of items found in the vehicle in which Appellant was stopped constituted reversible ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant "stated a legally sufficient claim for relief, and the record before this court does not conclusively refute the claim." *Harris v. State* , 74 So.3d 567, 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
Marion GANT and Letha Gant, Appellants, v. US BANK, NA as TRUSTEE FOR CITIGROUP MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-WFHE3, ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-WFHE3, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3306

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 31, 2018 Rehearing Denied February 11, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Order filed March 25, 2021

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals ___________

No. 11-20-00012-CR

___________

MARIA JESUS SANCHEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 244th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. C-17-1052-CR

O R D E R

This court previously issued an opinion in this cause after Appellant’s counsel 

filed an Anders brief. The State sought discretionary review in the Court of Criminal 

Appeals. In its amended petition for discretionary review, the State pointed out that 

appellate counsel for Appellant “was conflicted out of representing her.” The Court 

of Criminal Appeals agreed, as do we. Because of appellate counsel’s 

disqualification, the Court of Criminal Appeals has vacated the previous judgment 

of this court and has remanded the cause to this court. We now abate the appeal and 
2

remand the cause to the trial court for the appointment of new appellate counsel to 

represent Appellant in this appeal. 

The clerk of the trial court is directed to prepare and forward to this court a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing a notification of the appointment of new 

counsel. The record is due to be filed in this court on or before April 9, 2021. Once 

new counsel has been appointed and the supplemental clerk’s record has been filed, 

the appeal will be reinstated. 

New appellate counsel is directed to file a brief on behalf of Appellant. The 

brief will be due thirty days after this appeal is reinstated. 

The appeal is abated. 

PER CURIAM

March 25, 2021

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.
# C_2023112EN.01003001.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2023 — Aquind and Others v Commission

(Case T-295/20) (1)

(Energy - Trans-European energy infrastructure - Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 - Delegated regulation amending the list of projects of common interest - Second paragraph of Article 172 TFEU - Refusal of a Member State to give its approval to a proposed electricity interconnector with a view to granting the status of a project of common interest - Non-inclusion by the Commission of the project in the amended list - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of good administration - Equal treatment - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Proportionality - Article 10 of the Energy Charter Treaty)

(2023/C 112/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Aquind Ltd (Wallsend, United Kingdom), Aquind SAS (Rouen, France), Aquind Energy Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Goldberg, C. Davis and J. Bille, Solicitors, and by E. White, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: O. Beynet and B. De Meester, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: J. Möller and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Ruiz Sánchez, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: A.-L. Desjonquères, A. Daniel, W. Zemamta and R. Bénard, acting as Agents)

Re:

By their action based on Article 263 TFEU, the applicants seek annulment of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/389 of 31 October 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 347/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the Union list of projects of common interest (OJ 2020 L 74, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Aquind Ltd, Aquind SAS and Aquind Energy Sàrl to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Aquind Ltd, Aquind SAS and Aquind Energy Sàrl to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic each to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic each to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

vs. ) No. 3:03-CR-0078-N (01)

) 

ANDRE LYNN FORD, ID # 29802-177, )

Defendant. )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1), including the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge and any objections thereto, the Court is of the opinion that the Findings and

Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and they are accepted as the Findings and

Conclusions of the Court.

The Court hereby finds good cause under Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4) for an extension of time

for defendant to file his February 12, 2009 notice of appeal, and the defendant’s notice of appeal is

therefore timely. Notice is hereby given to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the finding of good

cause, the granting of an extension of time, and the resulting timeliness of the February 12, 2009

notice of appeal, and the case shall be returned to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for further

proceedings on the timely-filed notice of appeal.

SIGNED October 1, 2009.

 

David C. Godbey

United States District Judge 

 

 Case 3:03-cr-00078-N Document 800 Filed 10/01/09 Page 1 of 1 PageID 4915
117033.000001 4893-5245-2524.1 

Deborah D. Williamson 

TX State Bar No. 21617500 

Dwilliamson@dykema.com 

Patrick L. Huffstickler 

TX State Bar No. 10199250 

phuffstickler@dykema.com

Danielle R. Behrends 

TX State Bar No. 24086961 

dbehrends@dykema.com 

DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 

112 E. Pecan St., Suite 1800 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Telephone: (210) 554-5500 

Scott C. Skelton 

sskelton@ssbww.law 

Holli Pryor-Baze 

hbaze@ssbww.law 

SKELTON SLUSHER 

 BARNHILL WATKINS WELLS PLLC 

1616 S. Chestnut 

Lufkin, Texas 75901 

Telephone: (936) 632-2300 

Fax: (936) 635-8407 

COUNSEL FOR NACOGDOCHES COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT 

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

In re: 

Lion Star Nacogdoches Hospital, LLC, 

Debtor. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CHAPTER 11 

Case No. 23-43535-mxm11 

NOTICE OF CLOSING DATE AND EFFECTIVE TIME 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING MATTER: 

Nacogdoches County Hospital District (the “District”), by and through its undersigned 

counsel, in the above-captioned case, hereby files this Notice of Closing Date and Effective Time

(the “Notice”) regarding the Hospital Asset Purchase Agreement (the “APA”) between Debtor 

Lion Star Nacogdoches Hospital, LLC (the “Debtor”) and the District, dated March 8, 2024. 

See Exhibit A to ECF No. 227. 

In accordance with the APA, the transaction between the Debtor and the District closed on 

Friday, March 8, 2024 (the “Closing Date”), with an effective time of Monday, March 11, 2024, 

at 12:01 A.M. Central (the “Effective Time”). 

Case 23-43535-mxm11 Doc 232 Filed 03/11/24 Entered 03/11/24 11:17:49 Desc

Main Document Page 1 of 2
2 

Dated: March 11, 2024 DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 

112 E. Pecan St., Suite 1800 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

(210) 554-5500 

(210) 226-8395 (Fax) 

By: /s/ Deborah D. Williamson 

Deborah D. Williamson 

Texas State Bar No. 21617500 

dwilliamson@dykema.com 

Patrick L. Huffstickler 

Texas State Bar No. 10199250 

phuffstickler@dykema.com 

Danielle R. Behrends 

Texas State Bar No. 24086961 

dbehrends@dykema.com 

 and 

Scott C. Skelton 

Holli Baze 

SKELTON SLUSHER BARNHILL WATKINS 

WELLS PLLC 

1616 S. Chestnut 

Lufkin, Texas 75901 

(936) 632-2300 

(936) 635-8407 (Fax) 

sskelton@ssbww.law 

hbaze@ssbww.law 

COUNSEL FOR NACOGDOCHES COUNTY 

HOSPITAL DISTRICT 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been 

served by the Electronic Case Filing System for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the 

Northern District of Texas on March 11, 2024. 

/s/ Deborah D. Williamson 

 Deborah D. Williamson 

Case 23-43535-mxm11 Doc 232 Filed 03/11/24 Entered 03/11/24 11:17:49 Desc

Main Document Page 2 of 2
Order entered August 16, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00474-CV

ISRAEL A. GONZALEZ, Appellant

V.

TIMOTHY C. ABIGAIL, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-08247

ORDER

As directed to do so, appellant has filed written verification he has requested 

the reporter’s record of hearings conducted on January 8, 2021 and March 26, 

2021. In light of these circumstances, we ORDER Gina Udall, Official Court 

Reporter for the 160th Judicial District Court, to file the requested records no later 

than September 15, 2021.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
# C_2021452EN.01003701.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — Celler Lagravera v EUIPO — Cyclic Beer Farm (Cíclic)

(Case T-673/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Cíclic - Earlier EU word mark CYCLIC - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 452/44)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Celler Lagravera, SLU (Alfarràs, Spain) (represented by: J. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Gája, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Cyclic Beer Farm, SL (Barcelona, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 18 August 2020 (Case R 465/2020-5) relating to opposition proceedings between Cyclic Beer Farm and Celler Lagravera.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Celler Lagravera, SLU to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Celler Lagravera, SLU to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 18.1.2021.

---
# C_2022095EN.01003002.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 21 December 2021 — MO v Council

(Case T-587/20) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Compulsory reassignment - 2019 Appraisal exercise - Right to be heard - Liability)

(2022/C 95/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: MO (represented by: A. Guillerme, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer, M. Alver and K. Kouri, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU for, first, annulment of the decision of the Council of 19 November 2019 to reassign the applicant to the [confidential] unit and of the applicant’s appraisal report for 2019 and, second, compensation in respect of the material and non-material damage the applicant allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders MO to the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders MO to the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 433, 14.12.2020.

---
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of OraSure Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Douglas A. Michels, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Douglas A. Michels                                  
|Douglas A. Michels President and Chief Executive
Officer

March 10, 2009
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 37 Filed 10/14/03 Page 1 of 8 PageID 196
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 37 Filed 10/14/03 Page 2 of 8 PageID 197
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 37 Filed 10/14/03 Page 3 of 8 PageID 198
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 37 Filed 10/14/03 Page 4 of 8 PageID 199
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 37 Filed 10/14/03 Page 5 of 8 PageID 200
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 37 Filed 10/14/03 Page 6 of 8 PageID 201
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 37 Filed 10/14/03 Page 7 of 8 PageID 202
Case 2:03-cv-00140-J Document 37 Filed 10/14/03 Page 8 of 8 PageID 203
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 26, 2013

NO. 03-12-00581-CR

Shaurisha Jenell Steele, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the trial court’s 

judgment revoking Steele’s community supervision: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND 

DECREED by the Court that the trial court’s judgment revoking Steele’s community 

supervision is in all things affirmed; and it appearing that the appellant is indigent and unable to 

pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; and that this decision be certified below 

for observance.