alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued December 19 , 201 9

In The 

## Court of Appeals
For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 1 9
- 00 565
- C V

——————————— IN RE AMLI/ BPMT TOWNE SQUARE PA RTNERSHIP , AMLI R ESIDENTIAL P ROPERTIES , L.P., AMLI R ESIDENTIAL PARTNERS , LLC, AND AMLI M AN AGEMENT C OMPANY, Relator s

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OP I NION
Relator s , AMLI/BPMT Towne Square Partnership, AMLI Res idential Properties, L.P., AMLI Residential Partners LLC, and AMLI Management Company , ha ve filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to h ave this Court2

reverse the trial court ’ s order denying relators ’ motion to enforce a contractual jury
waiver. 1
We deny relator s ’ petition for a writ of mandamus. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 52.8(a). We deny the motion to strike portion s of the mandamus record filed by
the real parties in interest

. We dismiss all othe r pending mot ions a s moot.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau and H ightower

.

1 The underly ing case is Baron Real Pr operty Holdings LLC and TSQuare Apts LLC v. AMLI/B P

MT Towne Square Partnership, AMLI Residential Prop erties, L.P., AMLI Residential Partners LLC, and AMLI Management Company , cause num ber 201 7

- 24217 , pending in the 2 95 t h Di strict Court of Harris County, Te xas, the Honor able D onna Roth presiding

.
(121 App. Div. 587.)

#### JENNINGS v. BROOKLYN HEIGHTS R. CO.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 23, 1907.)

1. Evidence—Presumptions.

The allegation that defendant had an electric railroad through a certain street for the carriage of passengers having been admitted, it will be presumed that a car running on such track, which injured plaintiff, belonged to defendant.

*2802. Same—Exclusive Possession.

Where defendant admitted that it had an electric railroad on a certain street, it will be presumed that Its exclusive use of the tracks on such street continued.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 20, Evidence, § 87.]

Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Brooklyn, First District.

Action by Thomas Jennings against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company. From a Municipal Court judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and HOOKER, GAYNOR, RICH, and MILLER, JJ.

Alfred L. Marilley, for appellant

H. F. Ives, for respondent.

GAYNOR, J.

The allegation of the complaint that the defendant had an electric railroad through Thirty-Ninth street for the carrying of passengers having been admitted by the answer, the court below could not presume that some other railroad company also ran its cars over the defendant’s tracks. It was therefore not necessary for the plaintiff to show that the car that hurt him was the defendant’s. That fact followed from the fact that the railroad tracks were the defendant’s. If there was evidence of the cars of another company running over the defendant’s tracks, the case might be different; but that fact is not to be presumed. The presumption is to the contrary, i. e., that the defendant’s possession is exclusive, just as much as the presumption is that my possession of my house is exclusive. There is no presumption that I have let a floor or a room to any one. No other company could be running cars over the defendant’s tracks except by its consent. Railroad Law, Laws 1890, p. 1113, c. 565, § 102. Its right and possession must at first have been exclusive, and the presumption is of continuance, not of change. Lawson on Presumptive Evidence, c. 8.

The judgment should be reversed.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed, and new trial ordered; costs to abide events. All concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          35,849
<SECURITIES>                                   623,185
<RECEIVABLES>                                  145,690
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,717
<INVENTORY>                                     36,392
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               929,240
<PP&E>                                         479,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                 128,997
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,403,056
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          235,812
<BONDS>                                         48,824
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,516
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,059,690
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,403,056
<SALES>                                        193,242
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               233,754
<CGS>                                           29,858
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  169,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 97,688
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,307
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             68,381
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    68,381
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44


</TABLE>
Order entered June 17, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01300-CR

RAUL R. RICOY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-54024-P

ORDER

The trial court’s certification reflects that appellant waived his right to appeal. After 

reviewing the record, the Court questions the accuracy of the certification. Specifically, although 

the plea form signed at the hearing on the State’s motion to adjudicate guilt has the box checked 

that states appellant waives his right to appeal, the record reflects that appellant pleaded true to 

the allegations in the motion to adjudicate without benefit of a plea bargain. The hearing on the 

motion to adjudicate was conducted on one day and the trial court sentenced appellant on a 

different day. Nothing in the record reflects any agreement between appellant and the State as to 

the sentence imposed, nor does the record contain anything to show appellant waived his right to 

appeal after he knew what his sentence would be. Therefore, it appears the certification may be 

incorrect. Additionally, appellant’s brief is overdue.
Accordingly, we ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why 

appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings 

and recommendations and determine the following:

 Whether appellant waived his right to appeal in conjunction with a plea agreement 

with the State or after appellant was aware of the sentence that would be imposed. 

See Ex parte Delaney, 207 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Blanco v. State, 

18 S.W.3d 218 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). If the trial court determines that 

appellant waived his right to appeal in one of the manners set out above, it shall 

make a finding to that effect.

 If the trial court determines appellant did not waive his right to appeal, the trial 

court shall prepare an amended rule 25.2(d) certification that accurately reflects 

the trial court proceedings.

 The trial court shall next determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the 

appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel 

has abandoned the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot 

obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the trial court shall conduct the hearing 

in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.–Corpus 

Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam).

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, any orders, and any supporting documentation, to this 

Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
# C_2008178EN.01000901.xml

| 15.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5015 — Sagard/BPEF/Fläkt Woods JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 178/12)

On 15 February 2008, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5015. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu). |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32008M5015. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROCIO RUIZ PERALES,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73426

Agency No. A095-305-045

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 19, 2010** 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Rocio Ruiz Perales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen

removal proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions

FILED

OCT 25 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73426

of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny

the petition for review.

Contrary to Ruiz Perales’ contention, the BIA applied the correct legal

standard in denying her motion to reopen. See Ordonez v. INS, 345 F.3d 777, 785

(9th Cir. 2003). 

The BIA acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence

submitted with Ruiz Perales’ motion was insufficient to warrant reopening. See

Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir. 2002) (the BIA’s denial of a motion to

reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to law”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1979 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1979

     To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic fiber tow.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 28, 2005

  Mrs. Cubin introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic fiber tow.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ACRYLIC FIBER TOW.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.55.01       Acrylic fiber tow  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         (polyacrylonitril                                                  31/2008
                         e tow) consisting
                         of 6 sub-bundles
                         crimped together,
                         each containing
                         45,000 filaments
                         (plus or minus
                         0.06) and 2-8
                         percent water,
                         such acrylic
                         fiber containing
                         by weight a
                         minimum of 92
                         percent
                         acrylonitrile,
                         not more than 0.1
                         percent zinc, and
                         average filament
                         denier of either
                         1.48 decitex
                         (plus or minus
                         0.08) or 1.32
                         decitex (plus or
                         minus 0.089)
                         (provided for in
                         subheading
                         5501.30.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A0117. W. A. GRIFFIN v. MINNIE P. MATTHEWS.

W. A. Griffin filed a direct appeal from a trial court order denying his motion

for summary judgment. However, the denial of a motion for summary judgment must

be appealed in accordance with the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in

OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), which include obtaining a certificate of immediate review. See

OCGA § 9-11-56 (h); Pace Constr. Corp. v. Northpark Assocs., 215 Ga. App. 438,

439 (450 SE2d 828) (1994). Because Griffin failed to comply with the requisite

interlocutory procedures, this application is premature and is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

September 04, 2019

09/04/2019
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 121 (Monday, June 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 33978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13650]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Notice of Public Meeting of the New York Advisory Committee; 
Correction

AGENCY: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

ACTION: Notice; correction to meeting purpose, time, and access 
information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Commission on Civil Rights published a notice in the 
Federal Register of Thursday, June 4, 2021, concerning a meeting of the 
New York Advisory Committee. The document contained an incorrect 
purpose, meeting time, and access information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mallory Trachtenberg at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9df0e9effcfef5e9f8f3fff8effadde8eefefeefb3faf2eb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1479606675777c60717a767166735461677777663a737b62">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 809-9618.
    Correction: In the Federal Register of Thursday, June 4, 2021, in 
FR Doc. 2021-11713, on pages 29997-29998, correct the purpose, time, 
web-link and dial-in information to read: The purpose of the meeting is 
to hear testimony and debrief the Committee's briefings on potential 
racial discrimination in eviction policies and enforcement in New York. 
When: Friday, July 16, 2021, from 1:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. EST at web 
conference link: https://bit.ly/3j4f7J8 password is USCCR; to join by 
phone only, dial: 1-800-360-9505; Access code: 199 338 2002.

    Dated: June 22, 2021.
David Mussatt,
Supervisory Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
[FR Doc. 2021-13650 Filed 6-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Soil and Water Management Research: St. Paul, MN
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Midwest Area St. Paul, Minnesota Soil and Water Management Research People Pamela Rice







Land Use and Contaminant Occurrenceheadline bar Evaluate the influence of historical land use, management practices and water conservation strategies on the occurrence and fate of contaminants in urban agriculture  Compare the relationship of land use with occurrence of antibiotics, hormones, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, pesticides, and other household and industrial compounds in surface waters and sediments


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS



### UNITED STATES ) No. ACM 40425 Appellee ) )

v. ) ) ORDER

Jason P. STELLY II ) Senior Airman (E

- 4) )

U.S. Air Force ) Appellant ) Panel 2

On 23 February 2024

, Appellant submitted a Motion to Withdraw from Appellant Review and Motion to Attach. Specifically, Appellant moved to attach

a DD Form 2330, Waiver/Withdrawal of Appellate Rights in General and Special Courts

- Martial Subject to Review by a Court of Criminal Appeals , signed
by Appellant and Appellant’s counsel on 22 February 2024

. The Government did not submit any opposition.

Accordingly, it is by the court on this 28th day of February , 202 4

,

ORDERED:

Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw from Appellate Review and Motion to Attach are GRANTED. Appellant’s case is forwarded to the Appellate Records
Branch (JAJM) for further processing in accordance with Rules for Courts

Martial 1115(f)(3) and 1201, Manual for Courts

- Martial, United States (20 24
ed.).

FOR THE COURT

FLEMING E. KEEFE, Capt, USAF Deputy Clerk of the Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. John Joseph DAVIS, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 05-5007.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 24, 2006.

Decided April 28, 2006.

Hervery B.O. Young, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Green-ville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

*240PER CURIAM:

John Joseph Davis appeals his conviction and forty-month sentence imposed following a guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and 924(e) (2000). Davis’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising the argument that the sentence was unreasonable, but stating that he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Government did not file an answering brief, and although advised of his right to do so, Davis did not file a pro se supplemental brief.

As required by *Anders,*we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. The district court sentenced Davis below the statutorily prescribed maximum of ten years’ imprisonment, and within the properly calculated range of the sentencing guidelines, between thirty-seven and forty-six months.*
      *See United States v. Green,*436 F.3d 449, 455-56 (4th Cir.2006). We find Davis’s sentence of forty months to be reasonable. We therefore affirm Davis’s conviction and sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform the client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*

We note that although the district court expressed its intention during the August 26, 2005 sentencing hearing to impose a shorter sentence, that sentence was conditioned upon Davis's passing a drug test. When Davis failed the test, the district court held a new sentencing hearing on September 9, 2005, at which it imposed the forty-month sentence from which Davis appeals.