alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL PAGE 1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

SHERONDA DANIELS, Individually and 

on Behalf of the Estate of L.V. Daniels, Jr., 

Deceased; 

L.V. DANIELS, SR. Individually and on 

Behalf of the Estate of L.V. Daniels, Jr., 

Deceased; and, 

LILLE RUE DANIELS, Individually and on 

Behalf of the Estate of L.V. Daniels, Jr., 

Deceased 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE CITY OF DALLAS and CITY OF 

DALLAS OFFICER KENT OWEN 

WOLVERTON, Individually and in his 

Official Capacity 

Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-02460-B

 US CONSTITUTION and 

 AMENDMENTS 

42 USC 1983 

Violation of Civil Rights et al 

PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL 

 Notice is hereby given that Sheronda Daniels, Individually and on behalf of the 

Estate of L.V. Daniels, Jr. Deceased; L.V. Daniels, Sr. Individually and on Behalf of the 

Estate of L.V. Daniels, Jr., Deceased; and, Lille Rue Daniels, Individually and on Behalf 

of the Estate of L.V. Daniels, Jr., Deceased, Plaintiffs in the above named case, hereby 

appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the amended final 

judgment entered in this action on the 8th day of August 2007. 

Case 3:05-cv-02460-B-BD Document 78 Filed 08/20/07 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1104
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF APPEAL PAGE 2 

 ___s/Stan Broome________ 

Stanley D. Broome 

Texas State Bar No. 24029457 

Matthew W. Bobo 

Texas State Bar No. 24006860 

Timothy J. Miller 

Texas State Bar No. 24032747 

BROOME BOBO, LLP 

105 Decker Court, Suite 850 

Irving, TX 75062 

214.574.7500 

214.574.7501 (fax) 

Harvey G. Joseph 

Texas State Bar No. 11027850 

THE LAW OFFICES OF HARVEY 

G. JOSEPH

P.O. Box 810485 

Dallas, Texas 75381 

214.769.6078 

214.574.7501 (fax) 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On the 20th day of August 2007 a true and correct copy of the above and 

foregoing pleading was forwarded to Defendant’s counsel electronically through the 

CM/ECF system in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local 

Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas – Dallas 

Division. 

 

____s/Stan Broome_____

Stanley D. Broome 

Case 3:05-cv-02460-B-BD Document 78 Filed 08/20/07 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1105
Jacob ALLEN, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2014

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 03, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Laquareious Jahmichael GRANDISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-1599

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 16, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
III 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 2 

Extending the life of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies and authorizing the use of the rotunda and Emancipation Hall 

of the Capitol by the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted 

for the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice President-elect 

of the United States. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 3, 2021 

Mr. MCCONNELL submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Extending the life of the Joint Congressional Committee 

on Inaugural Ceremonies and authorizing the use of 

the rotunda and Emancipation Hall of the Capitol by 

the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of the Presidentelect and the Vice President-elect of the United States. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 2 ATS 

1 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF JOINT COMMITTEE. 

2 Effective from January 3, 2021, the joint committee 

3 created by Senate Concurrent Resolution 38 (116th Con4 gress), agreed to June 26, 2020, to make the necessary 

5 arrangements for the inauguration of the President-elect 

6 and the Vice President-elect of the United States, is con7 tinued with the same power and authority provided for in 

8 that resolution. 

9 SEC. 2. USE OF CAPITOL. 

10 The rotunda and Emancipation Hall of the United 

11 States Capitol are authorized to be used on January 10, 

12 2021, January 17, 2021, and January 20, 2021 by the 

13 joint committee created by Senate Concurrent Resolution 

14 38 (116th Congress), agreed to June 26, 2020, in connec15 tion with the proceedings and ceremonies conducted for 

16 the inauguration of the President-elect and the Vice Presi17 dent-elect of the United States. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
# C_2017382EN.01002602.xml

| 13.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 382/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 382/26

---

Appeal brought on 12 April 2017 by Salvo Asenov Todorov against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2017 in Case T-839/16 Todorov v Court of Justice of the European Union

Todorov

Court of Justice of the European Union

(Case C-188/17 P)

(2017/C 382/31)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Slavo Asenov Todorov (represented by: K. Mladenova, advokat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Union

Other party to the proceedings:

The Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) declared this appeal manifestly admissible by order of 7 September 2017.

---
Case 4:16-cv-07387-KAW   Document 32-1   Filed 12/14/17   Page 1 of 4

Case 4:16-cv-07387-KAW   Document 32-1   Filed 12/14/17   Page 2 of 4

Case 4:16-cv-07387-KAW   Document 32-1   Filed 12/14/17   Page 3 of 4

Case 4:16-cv-07387-KAW   Document 32-1   Filed 12/14/17   Page 4 of 4
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50590

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OLVER ADALI SUAZO-IRIAS, also known as Erick Hernan Martinez

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:06-CR-50-ALL

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In 2006, Olver Adali Suazo-Irias (Suazo) pleaded guilty to possession with

the intent to distribute cocaine powder and five grams or more of cocaine base.

He was sentenced to the statutory minimum sentence of 60 months of

imprisonment. He appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

motion for a reduction of sentence, which was based on the United States

Sentencing Commission’s amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines’s base

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 17, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-50590

2

offense levels for crack cocaine. We review the denial of a § 3582(c)(2) motion for

abuse of discretion. United States v. Shaw, 30 F.3d 26, 28 (5th Cir. 1994).

Citing United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), and Kimbrough v.

United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007), Suazo argues that the district court abused

its discretion in denying his motion to reduce his sentence because the district

court erroneously believed its authority to reduce his sentence was limited by

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10. The Government has filed a motion for summary affirmance,

or, alternatively, for an extension of time within which to file a brief.

The district court could not have imposed a guidelines sentence that was

lower than the statutorily mandated minimum penalty. See United States v.

Harper, 527 F.3d 396, 411 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 212 (2008); United

States v. Gomez-Herrera, 523 F.3d 554, 559 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 624

(2008). Accordingly, Suazo has not shown that the district court abused its

discretion in denying his motion for a reduction of his sentence. See Shaw, 30

F.3d at 28.

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the

Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time is DISMISSED as

moot, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES

Date: 4/30/2020 Time: 1:30 – 4:55

Total Time: 3 Hrs 25 Mins

Judge: BETH LABSON FREEMAN

Case No.: 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Case Name: Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc.

Attorney for Plaintiff: Juanita Brooks, Roger Denning, Frank Albert, Aamir Kazi, Megan 

Chacon, Nicole Williams via Zoom Webinar

Attorney for Defendant: Woody Jameson, Matthew Gaudet, Robin McGrath, David Dotson, 

Alice Snedeker via Zoom Webinar

Deputy Clerk: Tiffany Salinas-Harwell Court Reporter: Irene Rodriguez

PROCEEDINGS

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE HELD

Jury Trial dates reset:

Jury Selection and Trial set for 6/22/2020 at 9:00 AM

JURY SELECTION

One Page Hardship Questionnaire and Case Questionnaire – Hardship Excusal

Jury Panel – 50 Jurors

8 Jurors to be Seated (Subject to change) – 3 Peremptory Challenges each side

VOIR DIRE/OPENING/CLOSING STATEMENTS

Voir Dire – TBD 

Opening Statements – 45 Minutes Each Side

Closing Statements – 1 Hour 30 Minutes Each Side

TRIAL SCHEDULE

18 Hours Trial Time Each Side

Jury Available for 3 weeks from First Day of Trial

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

Motions in Limine – Rulings Stated on the Record

///

Courtroom Deputy to the 

Honorable Beth Labson Freeman

Case 5:17-cv-00072-BLF Document 595 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 1
Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Center


FAQ
             
               What happens after filing my complaint
              How other agencies can help


**File an informal consumer complaint / Tell your story** By filing a consumer complaint and telling your story, you contribute to federal enforcement and consumer protection efforts on a national scale and help us identify trends and track the issues that matter most.


Affordable Connectivity Program
 If your complaint is about an Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) billing or service issue, the FCC may serve your complaint on your provider. Your provider has 30 days to send you a response to your complaint.
 Learn more
 File a complaint
 Phone Issues Billing, equipment or coverage, and more.
 
 Internet Service Issues Availability, speed, billing, equipment, and more.
 
 TV Service Issues Billing, indecency, loud commercials, service, and more.
 
 Radio Issues Pirate/unauthorized stations, interference, and more.
 
 Emergency Communications 911 outage, tower light outage, and more.
 
 Access for People with Disabilities Accessible TV video programming, communications services, and more.
  Robocalls/Unwanted calls and texts  Do you receive unwanted calls or texts from telemarketers? Is your own telephone number being spoofed, blocked, or labeled as a possible spam call? The FCC is committed to doing what we can to protect you. Learn more
 Privacy rules and your phone  If you have a privacy complaint, we want to hear from you. Various rules and laws require telecommunication carriers and interconnected VoIP services providers to protect "customer proprietary network information." Learn more
  Share your story with the FCC If you have concerns about a policy or provider, tell us about it. Telling us your story is not the same as filing a complaint. Your story will not be served on your provider and you will not hear back from the FCC. Share your experience
  Share your experience with data caps  Many providers cap how much data we use, which when exceeded, may result in higher fees and/or slower speeds. Share your experiences and challenges with data caps on your fixed or mobile broadband plans. Share your experience
 Share your broadband access experience  Share your unique experiences and challenges in getting broadband internet access. The FCC shares your story internally to identify trends, inform policy making and potential enforcement activities. Share your experience


Consumer Complaint Data Center
            
               What is an Informal Complaint?
            
               Stop Unwanted Robocalls
            
               Consumer Guides


**Federal Communications Commission**
        				45 L Street NE
        			Washington, DC 20554 
						Phone: 1-888-225-5322
       			Videophone: 1-844-432-2275
     			Fax: 1-866-418-0232More ways to contact us
 **Consumer Inquiries and Complaint Center**Browser compatibilityDownload a Complaint FormFile a complaint using our ASL Hotline
 **Related links**FCC.GOVWebsite Policies and NoticesPrivacy PolicyFOIAAccessibilityVulnerability Disclosure Policy
 Agent Log In
Stephen Jude KANE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3523

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 7, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
 
 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 Golden Autumn Holdings, Inc. (the
        "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2007 as
        filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
        I, Guanglong Li, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
        to 18
        U.S.C. 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 and 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.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to Armitage
        Mining Corp., and will be retained by Armitage Mining Corp., and furnished
        to
        the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 Dated: May 21, 2007
              
              /s/ Guanglong LiName:
                Guanglong LiTitle:
                Chief Executive Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 228 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 228

          Designating May 15, 2021, as ``Kids to Parks Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 20, 2021

  Mr. Wyden (for himself, Mr. Portman, Mr. Booker, Mr. Heinrich, Ms. 
Hirono, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Burr) submitted the following resolution; 
                   which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
          Designating May 15, 2021, as ``Kids to Parks Day''.

Whereas the 11th annual Kids to Parks Day will be celebrated on May 15, 2021;
Whereas the goals of Kids to Parks Day are to--

    (1) promote healthy outdoor recreation and responsible environmental 
stewardship;

    (2) empower young people; and

    (3) encourage families to get outdoors and visit the parks and public 
land of the United States;

Whereas, on Kids to Parks Day, individuals from rural, suburban, and urban areas 
        of the United States can be reintroduced to the splendid National, 
        State, and neighborhood parks located in their communities;
Whereas communities across the United States offer a variety of natural 
        resources and public land, often with free access, to individuals 
        seeking outdoor recreation;
Whereas the people of the United States, young and old, should be encouraged to 
        lead more healthy and active lifestyles;
Whereas Kids to Parks Day is an opportunity for families to take a break from 
        their busy lives and enjoy a day of active, wholesome fun; and
Whereas Kids to Parks Day will--

    (1) broaden an appreciation for nature and the outdoors in young 
people;

    (2) foster a safe setting for independent play and healthy adventure in 
neighborhood parks; and

    (3) facilitate self-reliance while strengthening communities: Now, 
therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates May 15, 2021, as ``Kids to Parks Day'';
            (2) recognizes the importance of outdoor recreation and the 
        preservation of open spaces for the health and education of the 
        young people of the United States; and
            (3) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        Kids to Parks Day with safe family trips to parks.
                                 <all>
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 18, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00232

- CV

IN RE ACCEPTANCE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY,

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CI22084

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The court’s opinion in this mandamus action issued September 26, 2018 . Thus, any

motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration was due October 11, 2018. On the

due date, real part y in interest, S.A. Villas, filed an unopposed motion for extension of time to

file a motion for rehearing and motion for en banc reconsideration, asking for an additional

twenty days in which to file such motions. After review, we GRANT the requested extensi on

and ORDER the real part y in interest to file its motion for rehearing and motion for en banc

reconsideration, if any, on or before October 31, 2018.

We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel.

It is so ORDERED on this 18th day of October, 2018

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_______________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
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

ANDRE JUSTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

AIMLEE AMARIAH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00041-SI 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 9, 11

Plaintiff, a detainee at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New York, filed 

this civil action asserting claims based on events and omissions apparently occurring in New 

York, Florida and perhaps West Virginia. The listed defendants are located in Florida and West 

Virginia. None of the events or omissions giving rise to the complaint occurred in the Northern 

District of California, and no defendant is alleged to reside in the Northern District of California. 

A civil action may be brought in “(1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if 

all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in 

which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a 

substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district 

in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in 

which any defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(a). When an action is filed in the wrong venue, the district court “shall dismiss, or 

if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have 

been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

The Northern District of California is not the proper venue for this action. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1391(a). Transfer of this action is not in the interest of justice; plaintiff has filed over seventy 

Case 3:17-cv-00041-SI Document 13 Filed 02/16/17 Page 1 of 2
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

cases in the last four years in numerous federal districts, and is aware of the venue requirements. 

See, e.g., Docket No. 3 in Juste v. McDonald Restaurant Corp., D.D.C. Case No. 15-cv-0054-

GMG-RWT (transfer order); Docket No. 13 in Juste v. Lynch, W.D.N.Y. Case No. 16-433-LJVJJM (Juste’s motion for transfer of venue). 

For the foregoing reasons, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), this action is DISMISSED 

because it was filed in the wrong judicial district. The dismissal is without prejudice to plaintiff 

filing an action asserting his claims in the proper venue. 

Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. (Docket No. 9.) In light of the 

dismissal of this action, plaintiff’s motion for alimony is DENIED as moot. (Docket No. 11.) 

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2017

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00041-SI Document 13 Filed 02/16/17 Page 2 of 2
EX PARTE David L. LUCAS

1161134 (CR-16-0902)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

October 13, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Cert. denied.