alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Louise MCKENZIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RIVER REGION MEDICAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees

No. 03-60849.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 3, 2004.

John Martin Mooney, Jr., Law Offices of John M. Mooney Jr., Jackson, MS, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Chad A. Shultz, Ford & Harrison, Atlanta, GA, William I. Gault, Jr., Kelly, Gault & Healy, Jackson, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

In July 1998, the River Region Medical Corporation (“River Region”) discharged Louise McKenzie from employment for allegedly racially harassing employees whom she supervised. McKenzie filed a suit against River Region, two supervisors, and Quorum Health Group, Inc. (“Quorum”), a company allegedly involved in the day-today operations of River Region. After her termination, McKenzie alleged a variety of state and federal claims against the Defendants. The district court granted summary judgment to the Defendants. McKenzie appeals that ruling.

We are unable to reach the merits of McKenzie’s arguments; her appellate brief precludes us from doing so. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(9) states that an appellant’s brief must contain an argument section with “contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Based on Rule 28, this Court has on several occasions declined to consider the merits of a claim where an appellant’s brief lacked “logical argumentation or citation to authority.” *See, e.g., Alameda Films*SA *de CV v. Authors Rights Restoration Corp. Inc.,*331 F.3d 472 (5th Cir.2003); *Meadowbriar Home for Children, Inc. v. Gunn,*81 F.3d 521, 532 (5th Cir.1996); *Randall v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.,*13 F.3d 888, 911 (5th Cir.1994). We have noted that “it is not the function of the Court of Appeals to comb the record for possible error, but rather it is counsel’s responsibility to point out distinctly and specifically the precise matters complained of, with appropriate citations to the page or pages in the record where the matters appear.” *223*United States v. Martinez-Mercado,*888 F.2d 1484,1492 (5th Cir.1989).

The dearth of citation to the record, and the utter lack of references to evidence supporting McKenzie’s claims constitute a violation of Rule 28(a)(9). McKenzie argues repeatedly that she submitted “credible” and “substantial” evidence in support of her claims, but then fails to specify the content of this evidence, much less where it can be located in the record. The scant references to the record identify only extraneous matters that fail to provide any logical argumentation. In the absence of an adequate brief, we must, and do, AFFIRM the district court’s ruling.

1

. 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 DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SPECIALTY MATBOARD CORP.,

Plaintiff,

VS.

PREMIER DIECUTTING &

MANUFACTURING, INC., ET AL.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:06-CV-0132-G

)

) ECF

)

)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The court, after considering the agreed stipulation of dismissal, which has been

signed by all parties who have appeared in this action, agrees that the agreed

stipulation of dismissal is well founded. Therefore, it is ORDERED that all claims

and counterclaims in this action are DISMISSED, without prejudice, with each party

to bear its own costs.

September 28, 2006.

Case 3:06-cv-00132-G Document 55 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 237
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined t hat

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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIER RODRIGUEZ-BARCO,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(L:01-CR-430-ALL)

_________________________________________________________________ August 12, 2002

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PARKER, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Javier Rodriguez-Barco pleaded guilty,

pursuant to a plea ag reement, to possession with intent to

distribute more than one kilogram of methamphetamine. He appealed

his sentence, insisting that, under United States Sentencing

Guideline (“U.S.S.G.”) § 1B1.8(a) or (b), his sentence should not

have been enhanced for importing the drug from Mexico because the

government first learned of the importation from him during an

interview after he entered into a cooperation agreement with agents

of the Drug Enforcemen t Administration (“DEA”). The government2

responds that it had knowledge of facts sufficient to constitute a

preponderance of the evidence that the m ethamphetamine had been

imported from Mexico before Rodriguez told the DEA agents about it.

We affirm.

In the district court, Rodriguez did not make t he argument

that he raises on appeal, so we review for plain error. Before

being turned over to the DEA agents and cooperating with them,

Rodriguez made known to the Bor der Patrol agents that he was a

citizen of Mexico, and that he had recently crossed the border. He

advised that the SUV he was driving, which had Mexican license

plates, did not belong to him. In addition to that information,

the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) contains information

obtained before Rodriguez cooperated with the DEA, such as the

facts that he changed his story about ownership of the SUV and

disclosed that he was to be paid $5,000 by an unk nown person for

driving the vehicle north in Texa s. Additionally, the large

quantity of methamphetamine hidden in the door panels of the SUV

supports an inference of importation.

Having reviewed the record on appeal and the briefs of

counsel, and heard oral argument from counsel, we are satisfied

that the pre-cooperation evidence and reasonable inferences from it

are sufficient to s upport the sentencing court’s finding of

importation by a preponderance of the evidence. As the law

requires no more, the sentence imposed by the district court is, in

all respects,

AFFIRMED.3 S:\OPINIONS\UNPUB\01\01-41017.0.wpd

4/29/04 5:46 pm
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ABILENE DIVISION

BOBBIE J. IVEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, )

Commissioner of Social Security, )

) Civil Action No. 1:05-CV-123-C

Defendant. ) ECF

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

THIS MATTER comes before the court on the Report and Recommendation filed

September 1, 2006 (Doc. 19). Neither party has filed objections within the period specified in 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

WHEREFORE, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is adopted by the court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Commissioner is affirmed and

Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a judgment in accordance with the terms of this order

shall be entered forthwith.

Dated September 22, 2006.

_________________________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 

 Case 1:05-cv-00123-C Document 20 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID 61
Case 3:05-cv-01238-P Document 22 Filed 08/05/05 Page 1 of 7 PageID 575
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01238-P Document 22 Filed 08/05/05 Page 2 of 7 PageID 576
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01238-P Document 22 Filed 08/05/05 Page 3 of 7 PageID 577
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01238-P Document 22 Filed 08/05/05 Page 4 of 7 PageID 578
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01238-P Document 22 Filed 08/05/05 Page 5 of 7 PageID 579
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01238-P Document 22 Filed 08/05/05 Page 6 of 7 PageID 580
 

 Case 3:05-cv-01238-P Document 22 Filed 08/05/05 Page 7 of 7 PageID 581
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Nicholas Padron, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), rendered March 11, 2010, after a jury trial, convicting him of assault in the third degree, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Larry R.C. Stephen, J.), rendered March 11, 2010, reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. </p><p>Criminal Court failed to meet its core responsibilities under <i>People v O'Rama</i>, 78 NY2d 270, 277 (1991), to read the substantive jury note into the record and allow defense counsel a full opportunity to suggest an appropriate response. As the People concede, this failure constituted a mode of proceedings error that is exempt from the preservation requirements and requires reversal (<i>see People v Kisoon</i>, 8 NY3d 129 [2007]; <a href="../2013/2013_03342.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Howell</i>, 106 AD3d 835</a> [2013], <i>lv denied </i>21 NY3d 1042 [2013]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT</p><br>I concurI concurI concur<br>Decision Date: December 12, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
**Exhibit 8.1**

 

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**

 

The following is a list of our subsidiaries (which are also the names under which they do business). The jurisdiction of incorporation of these subsidiaries is Portugalunless otherwise indicated. 

 

EDP – Gestão da Produçãode Energia, S.A. (“EDP Produção”) 

 

CPPE –Companhia Portuguesa de Produção de Electricidade, S.A. (“CPPE”) 

 

REN – Rede Eléctrica Nacional, S.A. (“REN”) 

 

EDP – Distribuição Energia, S.A. (“EDPD”) 

 

EDP Comercial, S.A. (“EDP Comercial”) 

 

EDP – Energias do Brasil, S.A. (“Energias do Brasil”) (incorporated in Brazil) 

 

EBE – Empresa Bandeirante de Energia, S.A. (“Bandeirante”) (incorporated in Brazil) 

 

Escelsa – Espirito Santo Centrais Eléctricas S.A. (“Escelsa”) (incorporated in Brazil) 

 

Enersul – Empresa Energética do Mato Grosso do Sul S.A. (“Enersul”) (incorporated in Brazil) 

 

Hidrocantábrico – Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A.(“Hidrocantábrico”) (incorporated in Spain) 

 

Hidrocantábrico Distribuición Eléctrica, S.A.U. (incorporated in Spain) 

 

Naturcorp Multiservicios, S.A.U. (“Naturcorp”) (incorporated in Spain) 

 

Genesa I, S.L. (“Genesa I”) (incorporated in Spain) 

 

ONI – Operadora Nacional de Interactivos, S.G.P.S., S.A. (“ONI”) 

 

Portgás – Sociedade de Produção e Distribuição de Gás, S.A. (“Portgás”)
EXHIBIT 21.1

                                  SUBSIDIARIES

EAPI Entertainment, Inc. wholly owns and operates the following subsidiaries:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMPANY                     STATE / PROVINCE OF INCORPORATION  DATE OF INCORPORATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                         <C>                                <C>
Duro Enzyme Solutions Inc.  Nevada                             September 6, 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duro Enzyme Solutions Inc.  Canadian Corporation               August 10, 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EASI Studio Inc.            British Columbia, Canada           June 20, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SuperNet Computing Inc.     British Columbia, Canada           June 20, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EASI Games Inc.             British Columbia, Canada           June 20, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EASI Education Inc.         Alberta, Canada                    May 30, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EASI Movies, Music TV Inc.  British Columbia, Canada           June 20, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAPI Center Inc.            Manitoba, Canada                   September 5, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home.web Sub. Inc.          Nevada                             November 1, 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>


<PAGE>
### NUM BER 13-02- 0033 3-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - E DI NBURG

____ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _______ _ IN RE: HISP A NIC TELEVI SI ON NETWORK, I NC.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On Petit ion fo r Writ of M an da mus .

____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam This peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus w as abated by thi s C our

t on Aug ust 8, 20 02, d ue to the bankr uptc y

of one of the par

ti es to t his appeal
. See 11 U.S .C . § 362; see g ene rally T EX . R. A PP . P. 8
. Si nce the a batementthere has been no ac ti v ity i n thi s proc eedi ng . On Janua ry 15, 2009, the C our

t ordered th e par

ti es to fil e a s tatus adv is or y and, i f appli cabl e, a moti on to re ins tate or a moti on to dis mis s. The order noti fied the p arti es that failu re to re spond to the o rd er

w oul d resul t i n re ins tatement and dis mis sal for w ant of pros ecut ion
.2

The par ti es hav e fa iled to respon d. Acc ordin g ly , w e rein sta te t he or ig ina l mandamus proceed ing and dis mis s t he pet it ion for w ri t of manda m u s f o r wan t of prosec uti on. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42 .3(b).
PERC UR IAM Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 12th day

of Ma rc h, 20 09.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BESTWAY (USA), INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PIETRO PASQUALE-ANTONI SGROMO, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00205-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 119

On September 17, 2018, Leonard Gregory Scott brought this motion for a temporary 

restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin Pietro Pasquale-Antoni Sgromo from 

continuing arbitration he has initiated against Scott. See Dkt. No. 119. Scott seeks to join the 

motion for a temporary restraining order filed by Bestway that was granted by this Court on 

September 13, see Dkt. No. 114, because he asserts that “the facts and law . . . are the same.” Dkt. 

No. 119.

A temporary restraining order is an “extraordinary remedy” that the court should award 

only upon a clear showing that the party is entitled to such relief. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. 

Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Such an order may be issued only where the moving party 

has established: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to 

plaintiff in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in plaintiff's favor; and 

(4) that an injunction is in the public interest. See id. at 22. 

Scott has not established a likelihood of success on the merits on the record presented. 

Scott’s moving papers do not include Sgromo’s arbitration demand or any other evidence that 

would allow the Court to determine whether the arbitration at issue would in fact conflict with any 

of the Court’s prior orders. He has simply relied on the arguments of another party, which is 
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

involved in an entirely different arbitration apparently brought on different bases. If Scott wants 

to obtain injunctive relief against Sgromo, he must specifically explain how the relief sought in the 

arbitration demand against him would necessarily conflict with this Court’s orders.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

9/25/2018
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 28 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 28

   Honoring the service of women in combat roles in the Armed Forces.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 16, 2025

     Mrs. Murray (for herself, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. 
 Blumenthal, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Coons, Mr. Booker, Ms. Smith, 
Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Wyden, Ms. Hirono, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Merkley, Ms. 
 Baldwin, Mr. Warnock, Mr. Schatz, Mr. Bennet, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Padilla, 
  Ms. Klobuchar, and Ms. Slotkin) submitted the following resolution; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Honoring the service of women in combat roles in the Armed Forces.

Whereas women have honorably served in the Armed Forces with distinction since 
        the Revolutionary War;
Whereas the Department of Defense announced the opening of all military 
        occupations and specialties to women in December 2015;
Whereas women have received numerous commendations for their service in combat 
        since September 2001, including Bronze Stars and Silver Stars;
Whereas, since September 11, 2001, approximately 3,000 women have earned Combat 
        Action Badges and Combat Action Ribbons; and
Whereas women in the Armed Forces serve in special forces units, including as 
        Army Rangers, Air Force Special Operators, and in the Marine Corps 
        Forces Special Operations Command: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) recognizes the contribution, bravery, and sacrifices of 
        women serving in combat roles in the Armed Forces; and
            (2) encourages the continued celebration of the 
        achievements of women in the Armed Forces to inspire future 
        generations.
                                 <all>
```
IIA 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 50 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale 

to the Government of Egypt of certain defense articles and services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 6, 2022 

Mr. PAUL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Egypt of certain 

defense articles and services. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the following proposed foreign military sale to the 

4 Government of Egypt is prohibited: 

5 (1) The sale of the following defense articles 

6 and services, described in Transmittal No. 20–81, 

7 submitted to Congress pursuant to section 36(b)(1) 

8 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 

9 2776(b)(1)), and published in the Congressional 

10 Record on February 16, 2021: up to one hundred 


PAMTMANN on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 50 IS 

1 sixty-eight (168) RIM–116C Rolling Airframe Mis2 siles (RAM) Block 2 tactical missiles; RAM Guided 

3 Missile Round Pack Tri-Pack shipping and storage 

4 containers; operator manuals and technical docu5 mentation; U.S. Government and contractor engi6 neering, technical and logistics support services; and 

7 other related elements of logistical and program sup8 port. 

9 (2) The sale of the following defense articles 

10 and services, described in Transmittal No. 21–0M, 

11 submitted to Congress pursuant to section 36(b)(1) 

12 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 

13 2776(b)(1)), and published in the Congressional 

14 Record on May 26, 2022: 

15 (A) The following Major Defense Equip16 ment (MDE): four (4) MK 49 MOD 5 RAM 

17 Guided Missile Launching Systems (GMLS) 

18 (MDE). 

19 (B) The following non-MOE: support 

20 equipment; sparing; U.S. Government and con21 tractor technical assistance; and U.S. Govern22 ment non-technical support. 

Æ 


PAMTMANN on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
D.R. v. S.M.

2161003

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

January 19, 2018

Dismissed.
Evolution of Methodology and 

Quality Measures Reports at 

USDA-NASS

Lindsay Drunasky

USDA-NASS

2022 FCSM

Washington, DC
Overview

• Background

• Content

• Process

• Challenges

• Future
NASS Background

• Mission

• To provide timely, accurate, 

and useful statistics in 

service to U.S. agriculture.

• Over 400 statistical 

releases published per 

year

• Over 80 unique reports 

each year

• Crops

• Livestock

• Economics

• Environmental
Background

• All federal statistical agencies required to produce 

survey documentation for data users

• OMB Standards and Guidelines for Statistical Surveys, 

Section 7.3

• Nearly all our reports have always had a small 

section on methodology at the end of report

• Began publishing longer Methodology and Quality 

Measures (QM) reports in 2011

• Currently publishing 28 unique QM reports

• Several new reports added in last two years
• QM reports created to:

• Satisfy OMB Standards and Guidelines

• Increase transparency

• Provide additional data quality measures for published 

estimates

• Publicly document our data collection instruments and 

survey methodology over time

• Helps answer questions from our data users

Background
Methodology and Quality Measures Reports
Content

• Methodology and Quality Measures report

• Report Form
Report Form
Content

• Survey Methodology

• Scope and Purpose

• Timeline

• Sampling

• Data Collection

• Survey Edit

• Analysis Tools

• Nonsampling Errors

• Estimators

• Estimation
Content

• Sample size and survey response rate

• Follow OMB Standards and Guidelines for Statistical 

Surveys (Guideline 3.2.2)

• Matches what is submitted for OMB docket renewal
• Weighted item response rate

• Proportion of the survey estimate that is reported and 

expanded by original sampling weight

• Measures all types of nonresponse adjustment 

(imputation, reweighting, calibration, etc.)

• Coefficient of Variation (CV)

• Ratio of standard error to survey estimate expressed as %

• Many surveys are a census so no sampling error

Content
Content Example
Process

1. Select report 2. Write 

methodology

3. Decide on 

items to 

publish

4. Decide on 

frequency

5. Create and 

review report

6. Publish QM 

report
Challenges

• One NASS report contains information from 

multiple surveys

• Grain Stocks 

• Annual Crop Production

• What is collected on survey is not directly 

published

• Chicken and Eggs

• Keeping report standardized but also customized
Future

• What’s next?

• Expand to more reports 

• Implement more automation to make report generation 

easier

• Follow decisions made by Dissemination team for all 

NASS reports

• Most likely QM not in static reports
Questions?