alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

CESAR GARZA, #871099, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 3:04-CV-487-P

)

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, Texas )

Department of Criminal Justice, ) 

Correctional Institutions Division, )

Respondent. )

ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

 RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court has under consideration the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of

United States Magistrate Judge Paul D. Stickney on Cesar Garza’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The District Court reviewed the proposed

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation de novo. Finding no error, the Court adopts the

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED this 10 day of November 2005. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-00487-P Document 7 Filed 11/10/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 48
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 U.S. Shipping Partners L.P. (the
Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Ronald L. OKelley,
President & Chief Executive Officer of US Shipping General Partner LLC, the
general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.

| |                                      
| | -------------------------------------
| | /s/ Ronald
  L. OKelley             
| |                                      
| | Ronald L. OKelley                   
| | President & Chief
  Executive Officer
| | August 11,
  2008                    

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to U.S. Shipping Partners L.P. and will be retained by U.S. Shipping
Partners L.P. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.

---
Bobby PARKER v. RAINBOW FOOD MART

2160437

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

July 28, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jessica Growden, Individually and On 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 

Appellant

No. 06-17-00093-CV v.

Good Shepherd Health System, The Good 

Shepherd Hospital, Inc., and Good 

Shepherd Medical Center, Appellees

Appeal from the 124th District Court of 

Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2016-647-

B). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Morriss, Justice Moseley and Justice 

Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find reversible error in the judgment of the 

court below. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal of Growden’s class-action claims, 

including her claim for attorney fees related to those claims, reverse the trial court’s dismissal of 

Growden’s individual claim for attorney fees, and remand this matter to the trial court for further 

proceedings.

We further order that the appellees, Good Shepherd Health System, The Good Shepherd 

Hospital, Inc., and Good Shepherd Medical Center, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED MAY 9, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Jeremy Shane FOGLEMAN v. STATE of Mississippi

2016-CT-01244-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: January 24, 2019 Closed: April 11, 2019

Motion Desc: Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Granted.
Cornelio HERRERA-MARTINEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-3256

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 6, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See**Adaway v. State*, 902 So.2d 746 (Fla. 2005) ; *Hughes v. State*, 22 So.3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ; *Steward v. State*, 931 So.2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ; *Shortridge v. State*, 884 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) ; *Brown v. State*, 827 So.2d 1054 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) ; *Banaszak v. State*, 579 So.2d 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) ; *Sims v. State*, 141 So.3d 613 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

SILBERMAN, VILLANTI, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
# C_2016287EN.01002701.xml

| 8.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 287/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 287/27

---

Action brought on 13 June 2016 — Marsh v EUIPO (ClaimsExcellence)

(Case T-308/16)

(2016/C 287/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Marsh GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: W. Riegger, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘ClaimsExcellence’ — Application No 13 847 462

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 April 2016 in Case R 2358/2015-4

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Case 2:03-cr-00049-D-BB Document 300 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 428
Case 5:04-cv-00219-C Document 14 Filed 05/16/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 64
Anthony Keith WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4261

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

November 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40895 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus JOSE MANUEL GONZALEZ-MARTINEZ and NESTOR IBARRA-OSUNA, Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. CR-B-95-125 - - - - - - - - - - October 14, 1996 Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Manuel Gonzalez-Martinez appeals his convictions and sentences for conspiracy to bring into and land, harbor, and transport a certain alien within the United States, and transporting a certain alien within the U.S., in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 & 2 and 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(B). His codefendant, Nestor Ibarra-Osuna, appeals his convictions for conspiracy to bring into and land, harbor, and transport certain aliens within the U.S., harboring certain aliens within the U.S., andNo. 95-40895 -2- transporting certain aliens within the U.S. We have reviewed the
arguments and the record and find no reversible error as to the defendants’ insufficient-evidence claims. See United States v. Bermea , 30 F.3d 1539, 1551 (5th Cir. 1994), cert . denied , 115 S. Ct. 1113 (1995). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Gonzalez-Martinez was responsible for 100 or more aliens for the purpose of determining his offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. SeeU.S.S.G. § 2L1.1(b)(2)(C); United States v. Wimbish , 980 F.2d 312, 313 (5th Cir. 1992), cert . denied , 508 U.S. 919 (1993); United States v. Maseratti , 1 F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir. 193), cert . denied , 114 S. Ct. 1096 (1994). AFFIRMED.
Opinion issued July 9 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 3
- 00 540
- C V

——————————— IN RE CHRISTOPHER DUPUY , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 Relator, Christopher D upuy , filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus and request for emergen cy relief, complaining that R espondent, the Honorable Ben Hardin, presiding judge of the 3 06th District Court of Galveston County , abused

1 The underling proceeding is In the Interest of B.T.D. and C.M.D. , N o. 12FD1807, in the 306th District Court of Galveston County, the Honorable Ben Hardin presiding.2 his discretion when he issued temporary orders in Relator ’s ex

- wife Adrienne Viterna’s suit to modify the parent

- child relationship. According to Relator: ( 1) Respondent abused his discretion in rendering a temporary order that had the effect of changing the designation of the person with the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child ren , (2) Respondent abused his discretion in rendering the temporary order because there is no evidence, o r alternatively , the evidence is insufficient to prove that the present circumstances of the children would significantly impair their physical health or emotional development, and (3) Respondent abused his discretion in admitting testimony and exhibits th at pre

- date the date of the prior orders. Relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although Relator provided us with an appendix, the appendix does not include Viterna’s most recent petition to modify or her a pplica tion for temporary orders, and it only includes brief excerpts from the 8

- day hearing on the application for temporary orders. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.3(k) (requiring that appendix include certified or sworn copy of any document showing matter complained of) ; T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 52.7 (requiring relator to file mandamus record containing all documents material to claim for relief ); s ee generally In re Bill Heard Chevrolet, Ltd. , 209 S.W.3d 311 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st D ist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (discussing sufficiency of mandamus records). Based on the3 record provided, we cannot determine the basis for Viterna’s application for temporary orders or what evidence the trial court actually considered before it granted the temporary orders. Relator also failed to certify that he has reviewed the petition and concluded that “every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence inclu ded in the appendix or record.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 52.3(j). Accordingly , the petition for writ of mandamus is denied

. Relator ’s request for emergency relief is dismissed as moot

. PER CURIAM Panel consists of chief Justice Radack and Justices Sharp and Massengale

.
##### 



COMSTOCK HOMEBUILDING COMPANIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
  EXHIBIT 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Comstock Homebuilding Companies, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
    /s/ Christopher ClementeChristopher Clemente
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal executive officer)
### > -0002 Oe,g,r Coc»r4 of Cf'MM;! Apfpcj j, fP



## • r 1V^ iNc^e,—LI—(3o^^4L^rN Tri-lilllo Qi^cl 

### ik-o—M-W—Cciry,-r,r.yVS -^ =U*& IkO^



### Uirr-V >>f kcU.a f r^cu^A- Fl'UcI r>A ^ ~|^ ^0 15 _&.^s^a i M-\-^o\^ Ear -jrk Coup

## I t -a y\^-^ i^e JlIjH- 4-3- NJ *<3—Q. U/V\'<>ft "To o >U, d" -\^ 

### yrg,s<^W—U Kj-tk l^k^j ^.^imO ^4 

### -K—<^&'fo-»fe-—=to—^-7—l^sk-e,^ ^£-fi-*Vi<Ki ?

:&. 

### ~^ ^p.o-^r—r-?oi-^-fr.l ckp^ rv.vHfi'r^l £rj^ ~t^

RECEIVED IN COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS ^K<^£CJ^1c=v-t-r APR 23 2015 

### J_av<4k^-fr-jjMbAdelAcosia,QierR 

### ^Btz^clIS.
Case 3:03-cv-01324-M Document 8 Filed 10/20/03 Page 1 of 1 PageID 40
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer of**

**AdvanceAmerica, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.**

**Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**(Adopted bySection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of AdvanceAmerica, Cash Advance Centers, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30,2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,Kenneth E. Compton, President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                 |     | /s/  KENNETH E. COMPTON                 |
|----------------------|----------|-----------------------------------------|
|                 |     |                                    |
|                 |     | Kenneth  E. Compton                     |
| * *             | * * | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |
| * *             | * * | * *                                |
| August 6,  2010 | * * | * *                                |

 

----
# C_2016232EN.01002901.xml

| 27.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/29

---

Action brought on 2 May 2016 — Brancheforening for Regulerkraft i Danmark v Commission

(Case T-203/16)

(2016/C 232/37)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Brancheforening for Regulerkraft i Danmark [Danish Regulating Power Association (BRD)] (Ikast, Denmark) (represented by: N. Gade, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that the Commission has infringed Article 265 TFEU, despite the requirement to act provided for in that article, in the manner in which it initiated the formal State aid investigation procedure: see Article 4(4) of Regulation No 2015/1589 and, contrary to the time limit laid down in Article 9(6), having failed to deliver a decision in State aid Case SA.32699 and SA.32184 on aid to electricity suppliers, which affects the market for regulating power. |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Commission has infringed Article 265 TFEU, despite the requirement to act provided for in that article, in the manner in which it initiated the formal State aid investigation procedure: see Article 4(4) of Regulation No 2015/1589 and, contrary to the time limit laid down in Article 9(6), having failed to deliver a decision in State aid Case SA.32699 and SA.32184 on aid to electricity suppliers, which affects the market for regulating power.

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the Commission has infringed Article 265 TFEU by having initiated the formal State aid procedure only 29 months after the applicant’s complaint and by having failed to deliver a decision in the case even some 31 months after initiating that procedure.

The applicant further submits that the Commission has received all information that could possibly be necessary to complete the State aid procedure and that a period of 31 months must be deemed to be abundantly sufficient in which to cover the factual and relevant aspects of the case, not least since, prior to the aforementioned 29 months spent on the preliminary examination procedure, the Commission had a total of five years to investigate the case.

---
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, B. Steven Springrose, certify that:




1.
        I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Biotel Inc.;




2
        Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;




3.
        Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4.
        The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:




(a)
        Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;




(b)
        Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and




(c)
        Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely, to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and




5.
        The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




(a)
        All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants 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 a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.




Date:  May 14, 2008
        
        By:
        /s/ B. Steven SpringroseChief Executive Officer and President






---
SAVE OUR HILLS, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, and O'Neil Couvillion v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

NO. 2019-C-0057

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 18, 2019

Denied.
Order filed June 17, 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00389

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF J .N.G., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013

- 02369J



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

- child relationship is at issue. Appellant’s brief was due
June 15 , 2015, but has not 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.
See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (effective May 1, 2012). This accelerated schedule requires gr eater compliance with briefing deadlines.Therefore we order appellant’s appointed counsel, William M. Thursland , to

file appellant’s brief no later than June 29 , 2015. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why he s hould not be held in contempt of court. In addition, the court may require appointment of new counsel due to the failure to timely file appellant’s brief.

PER CURIAM
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 135 

To designate the West Indian manatee as an endangered species under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2025 

Mr. BUCHANAN (for himself and Mr. FROST) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To designate the West Indian manatee as an endangered 

species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Manatee Protection 

5 Act of 2025’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WEST INDIAN MANATEE DESIGNATED ENDAN7 GERED SPECIES. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi9 sion of law, the species known as the ‘‘West Indian man10 atee’’ (Trichechus manatus) shall be treated as an endanVerDate Sep 11 2014 17:15 Jan 29, 2025 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H135.IH H135

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 135 IH

1 gered species for purposes of the Endangered Species Act 

2 of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

3 (b) LISTING OF WEST INDIAN MANATEE.—Notwith4 standing any other provision of law, the Secretary of the 

5 Interior shall include the species known as the ‘‘West In6 dian manatee’’ (Trichechus manatus) in the endangered 

7 species list published under section 4(c) of the Endangered 

8 Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(c)). 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS