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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL LOUIS BRISCO, 1074236, )

Petitioner, )

)

v. ) No. 3:04-CV-2687-P

) ECF

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, TDCJ-CID, )

Respondent. )

ORDER

After making the review required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Court finds that the

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and they are

adopted as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

The Court therefore DENIES Respondent’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust state

remedies.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed this 22 day of February 2006. nd

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:04-cv-02687-P Document 26 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 106
# C_2019187EN.01002101.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/21

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Henri Pouvin, Marie Dijoux, the spouse of Henri Pouvin v Électricité de France (EDF)

(Case C-590/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Scope - Article 2(b) and (c) - Concepts of ‘consumer’ and of ‘seller or supplier’ - Finance for the purchase of a home - Mortgage loan granted by an employer to its employee and to his spouse, the jointly and severally liable co-borrower)

(2019/C 187/23)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Henri Pouvin, Marie Dijoux, the spouse of Henri Pouvin

Defendant: Électricité de France (EDF)

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(b) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts must be interpreted as meaning that the employee of an undertaking and his spouse, who conclude a loan contract with that undertaking, reserved, principally, to members of staff of that undertaking, with a view to financing the purchase of real estate for private purposes, must be regarded as ‘consumers’, within the meaning of that provision;

Article 2(c) of Directive 93/13 must be interpreted as meaning that that undertaking must be regarded as a ‘seller or supplier’, within the meaning of that provision, where it concludes such a loan contract in the context of its professional activity, even if granting loans does not constitute its main activity.

---

(1)  OJ C 437, 18.12.2017.

---
# C_2018408EN.01002302.xml

| 12.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 408/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 408/23

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm — Germany) — Surjit Singh Bedi v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bundesrepublik Deutschland in Prozessstandschaft für das Vereinigte Königreich von Großbritannien und Nordirland

(Case C-312/17) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(2) - Prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of disability - Collective agreement on social security - Bridging assistance paid to former civilian employees of the Allied forces in Germany - Termination of the payment of that assistance when the recipient becomes entitled to early payment of a retirement pension for disabled persons under the statutory pension scheme))

(2018/C 408/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Surjit Singh Bedi

Defendants: Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Bundesrepublik Deutschland in Prozessstandschaft für das Vereinigte Königreich von Großbritannien und Nordirland

Operative part of the judgment

Article 2(2) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, as precluding a provision in a collective agreement under which the payment of bridging assistance — granted with the aim of ensuring a reasonable means of subsistence to a worker who has lost his job until he is entitled to a retirement pension under the statutory pension scheme — must cease once that worker is entitled to early payment of a retirement pension for severely disabled persons under that scheme.

---

(1)  OJ C 309, 18.9.2017.

---
EX PARTE Rebecca Lynn PRICE

CR-17-0036

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

November 22, 2017

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Harry L. HENDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3221

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed March 19, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       9,237,100
<SECURITIES>                                 5,648,400
<RECEIVABLES>                               38,270,500
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,766,400)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            66,519,200
<PP&E>                                      12,742,900
<DEPRECIATION>                             (6,226,200)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             226,815,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,850,200
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       278,200
<OTHER-SE>                                 187,374,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               226,815,400
<SALES>                                     98,624,600
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            98,624,600
<CGS>                                       22,656,500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,656,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            93,451,400
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               200,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             987,900
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (16,495,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   227,800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (16,267,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (16,267,600)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.64)


</TABLE>
I 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 229 

To prohibit the implementation of the Rock Springs Field Office Record 

of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2025 

Ms. HAGEMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To prohibit the implementation of the Rock Springs Field 

Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON IMPLEMENTATION. 

4 The Secretary of the Interior shall not implement, ad5 minister, or enforce the Rock Springs Field Office Record 

6 of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan, 

7 published by the Bureau of Land Management and dated 

8 December 2024. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
EX PARTE Leo HENLEY

1160724 (CR-16-0074)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 7, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.
1

Motion GRANTED in Part and Order filed February 27, 2017. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-17-00138-CV

____________

IN RE AMY HENRY, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

306th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 17-FD-0305

ORDER

On February 24, 2017, relator Amy Henry filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus asking this court to order the 306th Judicial District Court, in Galveston 

County, Texas, to vacate the Order Granting Extraordinary Relief that the Honorable 

C.G. Dibrell signed on February 21, 2017, as visiting judge in trial court number 17-

FD-0305. 
2

Relator also filed a motions for temporary relief asking this court to stay the 

Order Granting Extraordinary Relief and stay the proceedings below, pending a 

decision on the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. 

It appears from the facts stated in the petition and the motions that relator’s 

request for relief requires further consideration and that relator will be prejudiced 

unless immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relator’s 

motion in part and issue the following order:

We ORDER the following part of the Order Granting Extraordinary Relief

STAYED until a final decision by this court on relator’s petition for writ of 

mandamus, or until further order of this court:

We do not stay the hearing on temporary orders that the trial court has set for 

March 2, 2017.

In addition, the court requests Mark Henry, the real party-in-interest, to file a 

response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before March 9, 2017. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 52.4.

Additionally, we ORDER relator to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 9.9 by redacting the names of the children from the appendix to the 

mandamus petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.9. If relator fails to file an appendix in 

compliance with this rule by March 9, 2017, this court shall strike the appendix. 
3

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Donovan and Wise.
STATE of Louisiana v. Cliff MALBROUGH

NO. 2018-KP-1924

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 18, 2019

Denied.
Jonathan T. PARRISH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2951

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 25, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUTPUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.18.1


This FIRST  AMENDMENT to LOAN AND SECURITY  AGREEMENT dated as of May 10, 2002
and agreed to by and between TRAILER BRIDGE,  INC., a Delaware corporation
("Borrower") and TRANSPORTATION RECEIVABLES 1992, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company ("Lender") dated as of May 23, 2003.

RECITALS

A.      Borrower and Lender are party to a LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT dated as
of May 10, 2002

B.      Borrower and Lender wish to extend the term until October 1, 2004.


AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants
hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree to amend the agreement as
follows:

Section 1.2 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with:

1.2 Term and Prepayment. (a) On October 1, 2004, Borrower shall pay to Lender in
accordance with the Consolidated Promissory note, in cash, the Loan and all
accrued and unpaid interest thereon;

         Except as modified pursuant hereto, no other changes or modifications
to the LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT dated as of May 10, 2002 or the LOAN
DOCUMENTS are intended or implied and in all other respects the Loan Documents
are hereby specifically ratified, restated and confirmed by all parties hereto
as of the effective date hereof.

                                        TRAILER BRIDGE, INC.


                                        By:  /s/ William G. Gotimer, Jr.
                                           -------------------------------------
                                        Name:  William G. Gotimer, Jr.
                                        Title: Executive Vice President




                                        TRANSPORTATION RECEIVABLES 1992, LLC

                                        By The Estate of M. P. McLean, Member

                                        By:   /s/ John D. McCown
                                           -------------------------------------
                                        Name: John D. McCown
                                        Title:  Co-Executor


<PAGE>

                                        By:   /s/ F. Duffield Meyercord
                                           -------------------------------------
                                        Name: F. Duffield Meyercord
                                        Title:  Co-Executor
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0573

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

VALERIE SUE DOGTAKINGGUN GRANT,

Defendant 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 April 24, 2023, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 15 2023

03/15/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0573
Order entered January 14, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00283-CV

ESTATE OF: LOLA CHENOWITH, DECEASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-12-00202-2

ORDER

The supplemental clerk’s record containing a copy of the “Last Will & Testament of Lola 

B. Chenoweth” ordered to be filed by January 6, 2014 has not been filed. Accordingly, we 

ORDER Dallas County Clerk John F. Warren to file, no later than January 21, 2014, either a 

supplemental record containing the will or written verification that the will cannot be located. 

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF HEARING (467492) Page 1 of 2

Jerry C. Alexander

Texas Bar No. 00993500

alexanderj@passmanjones.com

PASSMAN & JONES

1201 Elm Street, Suite 2500

Dallas, Texas 75270-2500

(214) 742-2121 Telephone

(214) 748-7949 Facsimile

INTERIM COUNSEL TO TRUSTEE

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

IN RE:

HIGHLAND SELECT EQUITY

MASTER FUND, L.P.

Debtor.

IN RE:

HIGHLAND SELECT EQUITY

FUND GP, L.P.,

Debtor.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 23-31037-swe7

(Chapter 7)

Case No. 23-31039 mvl7

(Chapter 7)

NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF HEARING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the hearing on Debtor’s Motion to Transfer/Reassign Case 

which was scheduled for Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. before the Honorable Judge 

Michelle V. Larson in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, has been 

cancelled.

Date: July 18, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jerry C. Alexander

Jerry C. Alexander

Texas Bar No. 00993500

alexanderj@passmanjones.com

Case 23-31039-mvl7 Doc 34 Filed 07/18/23 Entered 07/18/23 15:31:03 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF HEARING (467492) Page 2 of 2

PASSMAN & JONES

1201 Elm Street, Suite 2500

Dallas, Texas 75270-2500

(214) 742-2121 Telephone

(214) 748-7949 Facsimile

INTERIM COUNSEL FOR THE TRUSTEE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Notice of Cancellation of Hearing 

regarding the Debtor’s Motion to Transfer/Reassign Case was served on all Counsel via the 

Court’s ECF/PACER system on the 18th day of July 2023.

/s/ Jerry C. Alexander

Jerry C. Alexander

Case 23-31039-mvl7 Doc 34 Filed 07/18/23 Entered 07/18/23 15:31:03 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
Curtis L. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3389

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 2, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
STATE of Louisiana v. Delance SMALL

No. 2018-KH-1418

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO**

PER CURIAM:

*291Denied. Applicant fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

Applicant has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Applicant's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, applicant has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
----

| (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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | NOVEMBER 16, 2009 |                                                                                                      |   |   |
|--------|-------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |              |                                                                                                      |   |
|   |              | /s/ MICHAEL GOLDBERG                                                                                 |   |
|   |              | MICHAEL GOLDBERG                                                                                          |   |
|   |              | ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER(PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPALFINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER) |   |
Exhibit
32




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 interim  report of Ecotality, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the six months ended June  30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Jonathan R. Read, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and I, Barry S. Baer, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to18
U.S.C. Section 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 result of operations of the
      Company.





/s/
      Jonathan R. ReadJonathan
      R. ReadChief
      Executive OfficerAugust
      14, 2009/s/
      Barry S. BaerBarry
      S. BaerChief
      Financial OfficerAugust
      14, 2009
Case 3:00-cv-01964-P Document 1 Filed 09/07/00 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1
Case 3:00-cv-01964-P Document 1 Filed 09/07/00 Page 2 of 7 PageID 2
Case 3:00-cv-01964-P Document 1 Filed 09/07/00 Page 3 of 7 PageID 3
Case 3:00-cv-01964-P Document 1 Filed 09/07/00 Page 4 of 7 PageID 4
Case 3:00-cv-01964-P Document 1 Filed 09/07/00 Page 5 of 7 PageID 5
Case 3:00-cv-01964-P Document 1 Filed 09/07/00 Page 6 of 7 PageID 6
Case 3:00-cv-01964-P Document 1 Filed 09/07/00 Page 7 of 7 PageID 7
Michael Lenore TUCKER v. STATE

CR-16-0327

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017 Reh. denied November 9, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Dennis G. Dracup, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Language Line Holdings, 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 officers 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:

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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) 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 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):

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: November 3, 2006
|                       | 
|By:                    |  | /s/ Dennis G. Dracup                
|                       |  | Dennis G. Dracup                    
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 31, 2018

No. 04-17-00730-CR

Terrence Jerome BYRD,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR9362W

Honorable Olin B. Strauss, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Bettina J. Williams’ notification of late record is hereby NOTED.

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 31st day of January, 2018.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court