alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION

Appellate case name: Orion Re al Estate Services Southeast, LLC v. SP Jefferson

Lakes I, LP

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 8

- 00 659

- CV

Trial court case number: 1098447

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

On September 27 , 201 8 , appellee, SP Jefferson Lakes I, LP, filed a motion to

di smiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction , contending that appellant’s May 23, 2018 motion to set aside default judgmen t did not extend the time to file a notice of appeal because there was no default judgment. Thus, appellee asserts that appellant’s July 23, 2018 notice of appeal was untimely filed more t han 30 days after the order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment was signed on May 2, 2018

.

On October 9, 2018, appellant , Orion Real Estate Services Southeast, LLC, filed a n opposition cont end ing that , although its motion to set aside default judgment did not “furnish grounds for vacating a default judgment rather than a summary judgment,” it was

filed within the 30

- day deadline for “motions for new trial” and argu ed that “[a] new trial in this case will neither occasion delay nor prejudice Plaintiff, because the trial date is set for later this month.” Thus, appellant argues that its motion to set aside default judgment was a motion to modify the judgment because it sought a substantive change , which extended its time to file a notice of appeal

. See Lane Bank Equip. Co. v. Smith So. Equip.,

Inc. , 10 S.W.3d 308, 314 (Tex. 2000).

“Any ‘timely filed postjudgment motion that seeks a substantive change in an existing judgment qualifies as a motion to modify under Rule 329b(g) [of the Texas Rules

of Civil Procedure], thus extending the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction and the appellate
timetable.’” Kaminetzky v. Newman , No. 01

- 10

- 01113

- CV, 2011 WL 6938536, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 29, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (quoting Lane Bank Equp.

Co

. , 10 S.W.3d at 314) (holding that timely motion to vacate judgment qualified as motion for new trial or motion to modify judgment because it sought to vacate judgment and grant new trial, thus extending time for notice of appeal)

. Because a ppellant ’s May 23, 2018motion to set aside default judgment was a timely postjudgment motion that sought a

substantive change in the May 2, 2018 order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment by seeking a new trial , it was a motion to modify the judgment that e xtended its time to file a notice of appeal for 90 days until July 31, 2018, making its July 23, 2018 notice of appeal timely. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1(a)(2) ; Lane Bank Equp. Co. , 10 S.W.3d

at 314. Accordingly, the Court DENIES appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal

.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: O c tober 16, 2018
Kenneth E. MORRIS, Sr. v. Charlene A. SUTHERLAND

2161078

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

November 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Order Granting Trustee’s Application for Employment of Attorney Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

_____________________________________

In Re:

CARL GERARD DORVIL,

Debtor.

_____________________________________

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 Case No. 23-30771-sgj7

No hearing requested.

ORDER GRANTING TRUSTEE’S APPLICATION FOR

EMPLOYMENT OF ATTORNEY

On this day, came on for consideration the Trustee’s Application for Employment of 

Attorney [Docket No. 16] (the “Application”), filed by Jeffrey H. Mims as Chapter 7 Trustee 

(the “Trustee”) seeking approval of the Court to allow CAVAZOS HENDRICKS POIROT, P.C. 

(the “Firm”) to represent the Trustee, as more particularly set forth in the Application and 

Affidavit on file in this matter. No notice of hearing on said Application need be given and no 

objections have been filed. The Trustee and the Firm have represented to this Court that the 

Firm holds or represents no interest adverse to the Debtors or the estate, that the Firm is

disinterested, and that its employment is in the best interest of the estate. It is therefore,

Signed May 31, 2023

______________________________________________________________________

The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 31 Filed 05/31/23 Entered 05/31/23 16:30:17 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Order Granting Trustee’s Application for Employment of Attorney Page 2 of 2

ORDERED, that the Trustee is authorized to employ the Firm as counsel pursuant to 11 

U.S.C. § 327(a), with all fees payable subject to interim and/or final application to and approval 

of this Court; and it is further,

ORDERED, that the Firm shall comply in all respects with N.D. TX L.B.R. 2016.1.

### END OF ORDER ###

Order submitted by:

Charles B. Hendricks

State Bar No. 09451050 

CAVAZOS HENDRICKS POIROT, P.C.

Suite 570, Founders Square

900 Jackson Street

Dallas, TX 75202

Phone: (214) 573-7302

Email: chuckh@chfirm.com

Proposed Attorneys for Jeffrey H. Mims, Chapter 7 Trustee

Case 23-30771-sgj7 Doc 31 Filed 05/31/23 Entered 05/31/23 16:30:17 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 44 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 9 PageID 261
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 44 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 9 PageID 262
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 44 Filed 02/22/06 Page 3 of 9 PageID 263
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 44 Filed 02/22/06 Page 4 of 9 PageID 264
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 44 Filed 02/22/06 Page 5 of 9 PageID 265
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 44 Filed 02/22/06 Page 6 of 9 PageID 266
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 44 Filed 02/22/06 Page 7 of 9 PageID 267
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 44 Filed 02/22/06 Page 8 of 9 PageID 268
Case 4:05-cv-00021-A Document 44 Filed 02/22/06 Page 9 of 9 PageID 269
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**Certification of Chief Executive Officer of**

**Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**

**(Adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002)**

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Advance America, Cash Advance Centers, Inc.(the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2009, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Kenneth E. Compton,President and Chief Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

1.                                       The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe 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 10, 2009 |                                    |

 

----
# C_2018399EN.01000602.xml

| 5.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal — United Kingdom) — Grenville Hampshire v The Board of the Pension Protection Fund

(Case C-17/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 2008/94/EC - Article 8 - Supplementary pension schemes - Protection of entitlement to old-age benefits - Minimum level of protection guaranteed))

(2018/C 399/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Court of Appeal

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Grenville Hampshire

Respondent: The Board of the Pension Protection Fund

Interested party: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as meaning that every individual employee must receive old-age benefits corresponding to at least 50 % of the value of his accrued entitlement under a supplementary occupational pension scheme in the event of his employer’s insolvency. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 8 of Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as meaning that every individual employee must receive old-age benefits corresponding to at least 50 % of the value of his accrued entitlement under a supplementary occupational pension scheme in the event of his employer’s insolvency.

| 2. | In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 has direct effect and may, therefore, be invoked before a national court by an individual employee in order to challenge a decision of a body such as the Board of the Pension Protection Fund. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 has direct effect and may, therefore, be invoked before a national court by an individual employee in order to challenge a decision of a body such as the Board of the Pension Protection Fund.

---

(1)  OJ C 78, 13.3.2017.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

TERRA FIRMA BUILDERS, LLC,

Respondent

v.

WILLIAM KING A/K/A BILLY M. KING AND 

MELANIE L. KING A/K/A MELANIE L. 

FRANTZ,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 606 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of March, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

GRANTED. The issue as stated by petitioner is:

Is a property owner who seeks to challenge the perfection of a mechanics’ lien 

required to file preliminary objections before or during the enforcement 

proceeding of the lien?
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-31723]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

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: January 6, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 19, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 557 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-913, K2025-914.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-31723 Filed 1-3-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Liza EDMOND v. Ronney GUILLORY, et al.

NO. 2019-C-0386

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2019

Denied.
# C_2021028EN.01002902.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/29

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 12 November 2020 — AKZ Burgas EOOD v Direktor na Direktsiya Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika — Burgas

(Case C-602/20)

(2021/C 28/47)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant and appellant on a point of law: AKZ — Burgas EOOD

Defendant and respondent on a point of law: Direktor na Direktsiya Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika — Burgas

Questions referred

| 1. | Does EU law preclude a national system, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits the statutory interest granted on repayment of social insurance contributions which were levied in breach of EU law to the interest accruing from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of the principal amount? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does EU law preclude a national system, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits the statutory interest granted on repayment of social insurance contributions which were levied in breach of EU law to the interest accruing from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of the principal amount?

| 2. | Does EU law, and in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, preclude a national system, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits the statutory interest granted on repayment of compulsory social insurance contributions which were levied in breach of EU law to the interest accruing from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of those unduly paid/levied sums until their repayment? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Does EU law, and in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, preclude a national system, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which limits the statutory interest granted on repayment of compulsory social insurance contributions which were levied in breach of EU law to the interest accruing from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of those unduly paid/levied sums until their repayment?

---
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 46 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 46

   To direct the Federal Communications Commission to prioritize the 
   timely processing of certain long-form applications in the Rural 
               Digital Opportunity Fund Phase II auction.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

 Mr. Bergman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the Federal Communications Commission to prioritize the 
   timely processing of certain long-form applications in the Rural 
               Digital Opportunity Fund Phase II auction.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Broadband Window of 
Opportunity Act''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

    The purpose of this Act is to level the playing field for service 
providers participating in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund that are 
disadvantaged by short construction seasons.

SEC. 3. APPLICATION PROCESSING PRIORITIZATION.

    With respect to the long-form applicants of the Rural Digital 
Opportunity Fund Phase II auction provided for in the Report and Order 
in the matter of Rural Digital Opportunity Fund and Connect America 
Fund adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (in this section 
referred to as the ``Commission'') on January 30, 2020 (FCC 20-5), the 
Commission shall prioritize the timely processing of long-form 
applications and any subsequent paperwork (in this section referred to 
as the ``applications'') submitted by the long-form applicants as 
follows: The Commission shall prioritize the timely processing of 
applications which are proposing to provide service in geographic areas 
which the Commission determines to have the shortest construction 
seasons (such as in areas characterized by long winters with heavy 
snowfall).
                                 <all>
```
**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-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2007 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
                14, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                James McKeeverJames McKeeverInterim Chief Financial Officer
* 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. 98-30562 USDC No. 97-CV-1802

FRANK L. MCCALL, JR., Petitioner-Appellant,

versus KELLY WARD, Warden, Wade Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

-------------------- November 9, 1999 Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The notice of appeal filed by Frank McCall, Jr., Louisiana prisoner #130746, is construed as a request for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(2). To obtain a COA, a petitioner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See § 2253(c)(2); Drinkard v. Johnson , 97 F.3d 751, 755 (5th Cir. 1996). In considering a nonconstitutional question in a COA application, such as the limitations issue presented here, the petitioner must first makeO R D E R No. 98-30562 - 2 - a credible showing of error by the district court. See Sonnier v. Johnson , 161 F.3d 941, 943-44 (5th Cir. 1998). Only if the petitioner succeeds in doing so will the court consider whether he has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right on his underlying claims. Id

. McCall has made a credible showing that the district court erred in dismissing his § 2254 petition as untimely. Under Villegas v. Johnson , 184 F.3d 467, 470-73 (5th Cir. 1999), the filing of McCall’s application for state habeas corpus relief served to toll the one-year limitations period under § 2244(d)(2), even though the application was rejected by the state court as abusive. As McCall filed his § 2254 petition while his state habeas application was pending on review in the Louisiana Supreme Court, his federal habeas petition was timely. Accordingly, COA is GRANTED, the district court’s judgment dismissing McCall’s § 2254 petition as time-barred is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings. See Sonnier , 161 F.3d at 945-46.
COA GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.
EX PARTE D.J.P.

1160757 (2160004)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 16, 2009

l0909 

# Order

September 16, 2009

138542

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138542 COA: 285677 Jackson CC: 07-003772-FH JAMES EDWARD HENDERSON, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 3, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY 

### , C.J., and C AVANAGH 

### and M ARKMAN 

### , JJ., would grant leave to appeal.
Trent Cole ASKEGARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0985

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 6, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51485

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARMANDO GUTIERREZ-ACUNA, also known as Marcial

Roman-Gonzalez,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:06-CR-2118-ALL

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

Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Armando

Gutierrez-Acuna raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph LEDAY

NO. 2019-KH-0239

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 15, 2019

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).