alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## NUMBER 13
- 2 2
- 001 36
- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

SPITZER INDUSTRIES, INC., CURTIS KELLY, INC., AND LUIS GALEANO , Appellants ,

v. JESUS MENDOZA CABRERA, AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ISIDRO MENDOZA CABRERA, ISIDRO MENDOZA, ESPERANZA CABRERA, AND WENDY ANDRADE, AS NEXT FRIEND OF M.A., A MINOR , Appellees

.

On appeal from the 1 0 7th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras
On April 1, 2022, appellants Spitzer Industries, Inc. (Spitzer) , Curtis Kelly, Inc. (Kelly) and Luis Galeano filed a petition for permissi ve i nterlocutory appeal seeking to2 challenge the trial c ourt’s d enial of their m otion for p artial s ummary j udgment in a wrongful

death case brought by appellees Jesus Mendoza Cabrera, as r epresentative of the e state of Isidro Mendoza Cabrera, Isidro Mendoza, Esperanza Cabrera, and Wendy Andrade,

as n ext f riend of M.A., a minor

. Pursuant to our request, appellees filed a respons e to the

motion. To be entitled to a permissive appeal from an interlocutory order that is not otherwise appealable, the requesting party must establish to the trial court that (1) the order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion” and (2) allowing an immediate appeal “may advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.014(d); see T EX

. R.

C IV

. P

. 168 ; T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 28.3 . If the trial court grants permission to appeal, as here, we may accept the appeal if the appeal is warranted under the foregoing criteria. T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 51.014(f).
Having reviewed appellant s ’ petition, the record documents attached t hereto, and

the response, this Court is of the opinion that appellant s have not shown their entitlement to permissive interlocutory appeal because fact issues remain on what appellants and the

trial court have identified as a controlling question of law

. See Diamond Prods. Int’l, Inc.

v. Handsel , 142 S.W.3d 491, 494 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (“ The statute does not contemplate permissive appeals of summary judgments where the facts

are in dispute. ”). Accordingly, the petition for permissive interlocutory appeal is DENIED.

DORI CONTRERAS Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the 7 th day of July , 202 2

.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Dennis G. Dracup, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A of Language Line, 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 quarterly 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 officers 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: September 19, 2006
|                         | 
|By:                      |  | /s/ Dennis G. Dracup                                 
|                         |  | Dennis G. Dracup Chief Executive Officer and Director
Regino RODOLFO, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4429

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 09, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Case 3:05-cv-00075-M Document 24 Filed 09/08/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 195
IV 

119TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 41 

Expressing support for the designation of the month of January, as ‘‘Tamil 

Language and Heritage Month’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2025 

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI (for himself, Ms. MALLIOTAKIS, Mr. SUBRAMANYAM, 

Ms. JAYAPAL, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. THANEDAR, and Mr. BERA) submitted 

the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the designation of the month of 

January, as ‘‘Tamil Language and Heritage Month’’. 

Whereas Tamil is one of the longest-surviving classical languages in the world, with a traceable history exceeding 

2,600 years; 

Whereas the recent archaeological excavations at Keeladi in 

Tamil Nadu, India, have uncovered evidence of a well-developed urban civilization dating back to the 3d century 

BCE; 

Whereas Tamil is an official language in 3 countries and spoken by over 80,000,000 people worldwide, with approximately 360,000 Tamil speakers in the United States as 

of 2023; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 41 IH 

Whereas the Tamil community celebrates the Pongal Festival 

each year in mid-January, marking the Tamil month of 

‘‘Thai’’ and celebrating the harvest, cattle, and Tamil 

arts, contributing to the vibrant cultural diversity of the 

United States; 

Whereas Tamil people, culture, tradition, and language have 

impacted many aspects of the economic, social, and cultural history of the United States; 

Whereas esteemed Tamil literary works, including the 

‘‘Thirukkural’’, ‘‘Tholkappiyam’’, ‘‘Aganaanuru’’, 

‘‘Puranaanuru’’, ‘‘Silappatikaram’’, and ‘‘Manimegalai’’, 

embody enduring values that inspire Tamil culture and 

enrich global heritage; 

Whereas these literary works can be read and interpreted by 

modern-day Tamil people, have been translated into more 

than 100 languages, and their values remain relevant to 

contemporary life; 

Whereas recognizing January as ‘‘Tamil Language and Heritage Month’’ allows the people of the United States to 

celebrate the rich history, language, and culture of the 

Tamil people and encourages all Americans to learn 

about the contributions of Tamil Americans to the cultural fabric of the Nation; 

Whereas States such as Michigan, Georgia, and Massachusetts have made proclamations to celebrate the cultural 

contributions of the Tamil people; and 

Whereas States such as North Carolina, Wisconsin, Virginia, 

and Minnesota have recognized January as Tamil Heritage Month, reflecting the growing appreciation of Tamil 

culture across the United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 41 IH 

1 (1) supports the designation of ‘‘Tamil Lan2 guage and Heritage Month’’; 

3 (2) recognizes that Tamil Americans enhance 

4 the rich diversity of and strengthens the United 

5 States; and 

6 (3) acknowledges the significance of Pongal, a 

7 festive celebration of harvest, for the Tamil people. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# IATD Reports - Recent Releases

Reports Recently Released by the Industry Analysis and Technology      Division

- Local Telephone Competition Released June 25, 2010                This report provides summary statistics of data that incumbent and competitive local exchange carriers, and mobile wireless telephone service providers, file twice a year on FCC Form 477, or summary statistics of voluntary survey data and selected other data (in the 1998 and 1999 releases).
- Telephone Penetration Report Released May 10, 2010                This report presents data on telephone penetration levels by state for        various income levels.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 2, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00267

- CV

DIATHEGEN , LLC,

Appellant

v.

PHYTON BIOTECH, INC., Phyton Biotech, LLC, Phyton Biotech, GmbH,

Appellees

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 17463

Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Jason K. Pulliam, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellant ’ s Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is

DENIED.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

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

court on this 2nd day of October, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottl e

Clerk of Court
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

FEBRUARY 11, 2015 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b). 

1. Case No. SD33103 

 Re: RICHARD COFFMAN and CHARLOTTE 

COFFMAN, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 vs. 

 COLUMBIA MUTUAL INSURANCE 

 COMPANY, 

 Defendant-Respondent. 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b). 

1. Case No. SD33295 

 Re: STATE OF MISSOURI, 

 Plaintiff-Respondent, 

 vs. 

 EDWARD LARON BALL, 

 Defendant-Appellant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> CANADIAN
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          14,612
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,805,590
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     60,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,880,702
<PP&E>                                       2,233,279
<DEPRECIATION>                                 279,238
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,762,593
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,169,541
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,840
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,142,731
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,762,593
<SALES>                                      2,326,025
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,421,945
<CGS>                                        2,083,321
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,314,137
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,120,081
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              71,763
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                832,643
<INCOME-TAX>                                   249,793
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            582,850
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   582,850
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .035
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .035
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

IN RE: ADOPTION OF C.L., C.L., MINOR 

CHILDREN 

PETITION OF: D.L., BIRTH FATHER 

:

:

:

:

:

No. 429 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

 

IN RE: ADOPTION OF C.L., CH L., 

MINOR CHILDREN 

PETITION OF: D.L., BIRTH FATHER 

:

:

:

:

:

No. 430 WAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is DENIED.
Shaun A. MARTINEZ, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0411

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 03, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed because of the appellant's failure to satisfy this court's February 6, 2019, fee order.

LaROSE, C.J., and KHOUZAM and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 86 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 86

Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on the Judiciary in 
                  the One Hundred Nineteenth Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 2025

    Mr. Jordan (for himself and Mr. Raskin) submitted the following 
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on the Judiciary in 
                  the One Hundred Nineteenth Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on the Judiciary (hereafter in 
this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), including the 
expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out of the 
applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for committee 
salaries and expenses, not more than $31,714,000 for the One Hundred 
Nineteenth Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $15,857,000 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2025, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2026; and
            (2) not more than $15,857,000 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2026, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2027.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House 
Administration.
                                 <all>
```
S. Con. Res. 25 Agreed to January 10, 2022

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty two 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That in recognition of the long and distinguished service 

rendered to the Nation by Harry Mason Reid, Jr., a Senator from 

the State of Nevada, his remains be permitted to lie in state 

in the rotunda of the Capitol on Wednesday, January 12, 2022, 

and the Architect of the Capitol, under the direction of the President 

pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall take all necessary steps for the accomplishment 

of that purpose. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives.
D.T., Mother of I.R. and S.F., Children, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

Case No. 5D19-148

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed April 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Allen Lenard MCGRIFF, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1087

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 8, 2019

FLORIDA DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Affirmed.
William N. LUCY v. STATE

CR-16-0951

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017 Reh. denied October 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit32**

 

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. § 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Reef Global Energy III, L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Michael J. Mauceli,Chief Executive Officer, and Daniel C. Sibley, Chief Financial Officer of ReefPartners LLC, the managing general partner of Reef Global Energy III, L.P.,certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)   TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

 

This certification ismade solely for the purposes of U.S.C. §1350, and not for any other purpose.

 

 
| /s/ Michael J. Mauceli  |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Michael J. Mauceli      |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| Reef Partners LLC       |
| November 22, 2004       |
|                    |
|                    |
| /s/ Daniel C. Sibley    |   |
| Daniel C. Sibley        |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| Reef Partners LLC       |
| November 22, 2004       |

 

1

----
Jeremy M. VALLIES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-1357

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed March 6, 2019

**FLORIDA DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Al Joseph FELDER, Jr. v. STATE

CR-16-0267

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

          - [Release No. 34-102196; File Nos. SR-CboeBZX-2024-124; SR-CboeEDGX-2024-082; SR-CBOE-2024-056; SR-C2-2024-022]

      ( print page 7715)    
                    On December 13, 2024, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc., Cboe Exchange, Inc., and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (“Exchanges”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) [1]                                          and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,[2]                                          proposed rule changes to adopt the Cboe Timestamping Service, which is a market data service comprised of two distinct market data reports. The proposed rule changes were immediately effective upon filing with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.[3]                                          On January 10, 2025, the Exchanges withdrew the proposed rule changes (SR-CboeBZX-2024-124; SR-CboeEDGX-2024-082; SR-CBOE-2024-056; SR-C2-2024-022).                

                        For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.[4] 

Sherry R. Haywood,

Assistant Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             17 CFR 240.19b-4.                    
        Back to Citation      

3.                             15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the exchange as “establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.” 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).                    
        Back to Citation      

4.                                 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).                        
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2025-01413 Filed 1-21-25; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MARVIN LUTHER MALONE, 411853, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 3:05-CV-788-N

)

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, ET AL., )

Defendants. )

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.

Signed July 6, 2005.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00788-N Document 8 Filed 07/06/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 49
Castadell RUFFIN v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2018-KH-1048

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 29, 2019

Denied.
James HICKS and Sheila Hicks v. RLI INSURANCE CO.

2170037

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

December 18, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Kenton G. FINDLAY, Appellant, v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., et al., Appellees.

No. 3D18-1714

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed December 19, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Case 3:05-cv-01476-L Document 117 Filed 06/02/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 981
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01476-L Document 117 Filed 06/02/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 982
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01476-L Document 117 Filed 06/02/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 983
Jim KNOX II v. MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

2160402

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 20, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Reh. denied.