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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

JOHNNY RAY PATTON, 1135013, )

Petitioner, )

v. ) No. 3:06-CV-424-P

) (Consolidated with

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, Director ) 3:06-CV-425-P

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, ) 3:06-CV-426-P

Correctional Institutions Division ) 3:06-CV-430-P)

Respondent. ) ECF

)

ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE FOREGOING RECOMMENDATION

Considering the record in this case and the above recommendation, and pursuant to Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 22(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c), the Court hereby finds and orders:

IFP STATUS:

(X) the party appealing is GRANTED in forma pauperis status on appeal.

( ) the party appealing is proceeding in forma pauperis.

( ) the party appealing is DENIED in forma pauperis status on appeal

for the following reasons:

( ) the Court certifies, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 24(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3), that

the appeal is not taken in good faith. In support of this finding, the Court adopts and

incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation entered

in this case on November 2, 2006. Based upon the Magistrate Judge’s findings, this

Court finds that the appeal presents no legal points of arguable merit and is therefore

frivolous. See Harkins v. Roberts, 935 F. Supp. 871, 873 (S. D. Miss. 1996) (citing

Howard v. King, 707 F. 2d 215, 219-20 (5 Cir. 1983)). th

( ) the person appealing is not a pauper;

( ) the person appealing has not complied with the requirements of Rule 24 of the Federal

Rules of Appellate Procedure and /or 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) as ordered by the Court.

(See Notice of Deficiency and Order entered on ).

COA:

( ) a Certificate of Appealability is GRANTED on the following issues: 

 

(X )a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. The Court hereby adopts and incorporates by reference

the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation filed in this case on April 4, 2007, in support of

its finding that Petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional

right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1602, 146 L. Ed .2d 542 (2000). 

SIGNED this 10 day of September, 2007. th

_________________________________

JORGE A. SOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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 amended Quarterly Report of Valley High Mining
Company (the "Registrant") on Form 10-QSB/A-1 for the quarter ended June 30,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Quarterly Report"), I, John Michael Coombs, CEO, President, Chief
Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and Chairman of the Board of the
Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best
of my knowledge and belief:

     (1) The Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Registrant.


Dated: November 29, 2005                  /s/ John Michael Coombs
                                          -------------------------------
                                          John Michael Coombs,
                                          CEO, President, CFO, and Chairman of
                                          the Board
Case 3:06-cv-00183-G Document 92 Filed 05/02/08 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1051
Case 3:06-cv-00183-G Document 92 Filed 05/02/08 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1052
Z.G. v. ETOWAH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2160918

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 23, 2018

Affirmed.
Phillip COOK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1859

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 25, 2019 Rehearing Denied April 09, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Case 3:06-cv-00171-B Document 13 Filed 08/01/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 120
K.M. v. LEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2161020

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 23, 2018

Affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

AIDA R. CORONA VILLALOBOS SANDERS, §

Plaintiff, §

§ 3:05-CV-708-N

v. §

§

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, 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 June 24, 2005.

 

DAVID C. GODBEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00708-N Document 9 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 106
Ferryn Nichole MOSS v. Thomas Shane MOSS

2170377

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

February 20, 2018

Dismissed.
1

 The court takes issue with petitioner' statement that "I did not want my case dismissed and I think the court

knew that and found a way out of the railroading practices that Dallas County has become notorious for." Pet. Ltr.,

11/22/05 at 1. In her prior correspondence to the court, petitioner plainly stated that "I do not want to file my writ in

federal court yet as it has not been to state court." Pet. Ltr., 9/30/05 at 1. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

TELISA DE'ANN BLACKMAN §

§

Petitioner, §

§

VS. §

§ NO. 3-05-CV-1874-P 

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division §

§

Respondent. §

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In a letter to the court received on November 21, 2005, Petitioner Telisa De'Ann Blackman

complains of the November 10, 2005 judgment granting her motion to dismiss this habeas case

without prejudice. The court construes the letter as a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment.

A district court may grant relief from a final judgment "[o]n motion and upon such terms as

are just . . ." FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). Among these terms are mistake, inadvertence, surprise, and

excusable neglect. FED.R.CIV. P. 60(b)(1). The court may also set aside a judgment for "any other

reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment." FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(6). Liberally

construed, it appears from petitioner's letter that she never intended to have her federal writ of

habeas corpus dismissed.1

 This constitutes mistake. Therefore, in the interests of justice, the case

should be reopened.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01874-P Document 10 Filed 11/29/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 115
RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner's motion for relief from judgment should be granted. This case should be reopened

and re-referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner

provided by law. Any party may file written objections to the recommendation within 10 days after

being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). The failure to file

written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon

grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th

Cir. 1996).

DATED: November 29, 2005.

 

 

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01874-P Document 10 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 116