alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- 51 - N ebraska S upreme C ourt A dva nc e S heets 302 N ebraska R eports STATE v . MUELLER Cite as 302 Neb. 51



### S tate of 

### N ebraska 

### , appellee 

### , v



### . Z a c hary 

### A

. M ueller 

### , appella n t



### . ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed January 18, 2019. No. S-17-387.

suppleme n tal opi n io n 

### Appeal from the District Court for Morrill County: L eo 

### P

. D obrovol n y 

### , Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled. Sarah P. Newell, of Nebraska Commission on Public Advocacy, for appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Stacy M. Foust for appellee.
H eavi c a n 

### , C.J., M iller


### ‐ L erma n 

### , C assel 

### , S ta c y 

### , F u n ke 

### , and P

apik 

### , JJ.

P er 

### C uriam



### . This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the appellant, Zachary A. Mueller, concerning our opinion in State v. Mueller

. 1 

### We overrule the motion, but we modify the opinion as follows: In the statement of facts section, we withdraw the word “no” in the second sentence in the 16th paragraph and substitute the word “another” in the quotation. 2

1 State v. Mueller , 301 Neb. 778, 920 N.W.2d 424 (2018).
2 Id . at 786, 920 N.W.2d at 432. Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 03/22/2019 01:08 PM CDT- 52 - N ebraska S upreme C ourt A dva nc e S heets 302 N ebraska R eports STATE v . MUELLER Cite as 302 Neb. 51 

### In the analysis section, we withdraw the fifth paragraph 3 

### under the subheading “ Venue Instruction ” and substitute the following: We note that although Mueller argued that the court should have given a venue instruction based on § 29

- 1306, he did not actually tender such an instruction, and that therefore, to the extent Mueller asserts on appeal that the court erred when it refused a requested instruction, under the applicable standards set forth above, we do not ordi

narily review whether the “tendered instruction” was a correct statement of the law or whether it was warranted by the evidence. See State v. Swindle , 300 Neb. 734, 915 N.W.2d 795 (2018). Here, we can review whether the venue instruction the court actually gave was proper under the circumstances; a consideration of whether the instruction should have included the content of § 29

- 1306 is an incidental part of that analysis. The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. F ormer opi n io n modified



### . M otio n for reheari n g overruled



### . F reude n berg 

### , J., not participating.

3 Id. at 791, 920 N.W.2d at 435.
Writ ofMandamusDismissed, Opinion issued February

## 7 ,2013

In The 

## QI:ourt of 1\pp

## eals 1J1iftq m istri.ct of Wexas at maHan

No. 05-11-00883-CV No. 05-11-00884-CV No. 05-11-00885-CV No. 05-11-00886-CV No. 05-11-00887-CV No. 05-11-00888-CV IN RE PHILLIPPE PADIEU, Relator OriginalProceeding from the 219th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas TrialCourt Cause Nos. 219-82276-07, 219-82277-07, 219-82278-07, 219-82279-07, 219-82280-07, and 219-82705-07 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Francis, Myers, and Evans OpinionbyJustice Evans The Court has before it relator's petition for writ ofmandamus. Relator complains that the trial court failed to rule on his motion for a free copy ofthe record in his criminal case. The relief requested byrelator now has been granted by the trial court. Therefore, the issues presented in this petition are moot. See Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia, 909 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding),In re Gill, No. 06-04-00090-CV, 2004 WL 1884498 at *1 (Tex. App.-TexarkanaAug. 24, 2004, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DISMISS

DAVID EVANS JUSTICE /
# L_2009317EN.01003001.xml

| 3.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 317/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 317/30

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1181/2009

of 30 November 2009

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications (Bremer Klaben (PGI))

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany’s application to register the name ‘Bremer Klaben’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) and in accordance with Article 17(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Germany’s application to register the name ‘Bremer Klaben’ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 November 2009.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 110, 14.5.2009, p. 7.

2

---

ANNEX

Foodstuffs listed in Annex I to the Regulation (EC) No 510/2006:

Class 2.4.   Bread, pastry, cakes, confectionery, biscuits and other baker’s wares

GERMANY

Bremer Klaben (PGI)

---
NUMBER 13-14-00601-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

AGUA SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT, Appellant,

v.

JUAN M. VILLARREAL AND GLORICA VILLARREAL, Appellees. 

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 8

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant filed an appeal from a judgment entered by the County Court at Law No. 

8 of Hidalgo County, Texas, in cause number CCD-0122-H. Appellant has filed an 

amended motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds it no longer wishes to pursue the 

appeal. The certificate of conference reflects that appellant was unable to confer with 
2

appellees because appellant does not have a valid phone number or electronic mail 

address or facsimile number for appellees.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant’s motion to 

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is hereby 

DISMISSED. There being no agreement in the motion regarding costs, pursuant to Rule 

42.1(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, all costs are taxed against appellant. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs 

against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion 

for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

12th day of February, 2015.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Steven Jones, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Delaney, J.), rendered June 8, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (four counts), robbery in the second degree (two counts), criminal use of a firearm in the first degree (four counts), criminal use of a firearm in the second degree (four counts), grand larceny in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have considered the defendant’s arguments with regard to the court’s determination denying suppression of certain physical evidence and find them to be without merit for the reasons stated on a codefendant’s appeal *(see, People v Seruya,*113 AD2d 777, *lv denied*66 NY2d 767). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
PUEBLO RES RELEASE TO THE ARKANSAS RIVERLatitude: 38.268Longitude: -104.724Elevation: None

Pueblo Res release to the Arkansas River

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Glen Cove Site Page...



Glen Cove

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Saint Elmo Site Page...



Saint Elmo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Hayden Pass Site Page...



Hayden Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Brumley Site Page...



Brumley

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Fremont Pass Site Page...



Fremont Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Independence Pass Site Page...



Independence Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Ivanhoe Site Page...



Ivanhoe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Porphyry Creek Site Page...



Porphyry Creek

Courtesy NRCS - Go to South Colony Site Page...



South Colony

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Medano Pass Site Page...



Medano Pass

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Buckskin Joe Site Page...



Buckskin Joe

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Rough And Tumble Site Page...



Rough And Tumble
Glen Canyon Dam Technical Work Group Meeting

June 21 - 22, 2005

List of Attachments

No. Title Author / Presenter

1 Minutes from HBC Concurrent Estimates meeting with

Dave Topping and Lew Coggins (to suffice for the actual

Scope of Work)

Barbara Ralston

2a

2b

Draft Genetics Management Plan for Humpback Chub

Comments from the Humpback Chub Comprehensive

Plan Ad Hoc Group on the Genetics Management Plan

Glen Knowles

3 Schedule of Meeting for GCD AMP Science Planning:

6/2005 – 11/2005 PowerPoint Presentation

Dave Garrett

4 Monitoring for humpback chub above Chute Falls, Little

Colorado River

Pam Sponholtz

5 Removal and quantification of Asian tapeworm from

humpback chub using Praziquantel

David Ward

6 Humpback Chub Hatchery Evaluation: Prospective

Refuge Facilities

Bill Persons

7a

7b

GCNP Natural Resource Linkages to the AMP

Multi-Species Conservation Program Projects

Ken McMullen

Bill Davis

8a

8b

8c

8d

8e

8f

Budget Ad Hoc Group PPT

FY06 Draft Budget and Work Plan

Response to Comments Table

Revisions for Cultural Projects C2 and C3

Hopi Tribe Letter to TWG Chair, dated June 24, 2005

Mail Message from Dennis Kubly to BAHG dated 6/6/05

with Response from Kurt Dongoske

Dennis Kubly

Ted Melis

Ted Melis

Helen Fairley

Mike Yeatts

9a

9b

Action Items List

Mail Message from Josh Korman dated 6/21/05 Ted Melis

10 TWG Effectiveness Comments Norm Henderson
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                     103,990,400
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              166,464,200
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 30,809,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           427,268,500
<PP&E>                                       1,325,700
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       791,700
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,623,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               427,268,500
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,146,400
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          10,718,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                               (5,566,600)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,299,600)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.17)


</TABLE>
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published. 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50282

 Conference Calendar 

__________________

DAMON HENRY DOWNS,

 Petitioner - Appellant.

 

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-95-CV-114

- - - - - - - - - -

June 27, 1995

Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In a proceeding in the district court, Damon Henry Downs 

sent a graphic threat of death by bombing to the district judge. 

He directed it and prior threats to that judge in particular and

to the judiciary generally. Downs's numerous convictions for

arson lead us to take the threat seriously. Accordingly, with

only slight exception, we close the courthouse doors in this

circuit to Downs's abusive pleadings, letters, and other

communications.

Downs may file no initial pleading in this court or in any
No. 95-50282

-2-

court subject to the jurisdiction of this court, except with the

advance written permission of a judge of the forum court. Before

filing any appeal or other action in this court, Downs shall

submit to the clerk of this court a request for permission to

file, together with the document that he proposes to file, which

the clerk shall direct to an active judge of this court. In

requesting the required permission in this court or in any court

in this circuit, Downs shall inform the court of the bar stated

herein. 

The court in the Western District of Texas imposed on Downs

sanctions that are more onerous than the sanction that we impose

here. As Downs does not challenge the district court's

sanctions, they are not before us for review. See, e.g., Yohey

v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). As an

exception to the circuit-wide bar described above, the sanction

that we impose today shall become effective in the Western

District of Texas only if and when the more onerous sanctions

already in force there are withdrawn.

In requesting leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis

(IFP), Downs challenges the district court's refusal of leave for

him to file a civil rights suit attacking a change in the way

that Texas prisoners accrue good time. An amendment to a state's

parole eligibility procedure is not an ex post facto law. 

California Dep't of Corrections v. Morales, 115 S. Ct. 1597, 1599

(1995). Such a change is not subject to a civil rights challenge

because it affects only a hope of release. Gilbertson v. Texas

Bd. of Pardons and Paroles, 993 F.2d 74, 75 (5th Cir. 1993). The
No. 95-50282

-3-

appeal is frivolous. It is dismissed as such. See 5th Cir. R.

42.2. 

IFP DENIED, APPEAL DISMISSED, SANCTION IMPOSED. The clerk

is directed to distribute this opinion to all clerks of court in

this circuit.
# Patent

## Title
Game apparatus

## Abstract

The foregoing description, of course, is merely an example of the particular rules by which the game of the invention may be played. However, it is obvious that the game may also be played in accordance with other rules. It is obvious, therefore, that although a particular embodiment of the invention has been shown and described, modifications may be made. It is intended in the claims to cover the modifications which come within the spirit and scope of the invention.

## Background
## Claims

1. A game board combination including: a game board having marked squares thereon constituting a path extending around the board, said path constituting a continuous course for purposes of continuity of play and simulating a street, said game board further having marked representations carrying the names of different exclusive retail establishments adjacent to the street simulated by the aforesaid path, certain of said squares designating an entry into the respective establishments, a catalog having pages identified by the names of the aforesaid exclusive establishments and having a list of service or products sold by the esetablishments on the respective pages, game pieces, dice means for determining the progression of the game pieces along the path from square to square, and a spinner for identifying the goods and services listed in said catalog on the page of the particular establishment entered by any one of said game pieces to determine the particular purchase to be made in the particular establishment by said game piece.

2. The game board combination defined in claim 1, in which portions of the path represent particularly designated areas, with representations of selected ones of the establishments being positioned adjacent to the path in the particularly designated areas.

3. The game board combination defined in claim 1, and which includes a deck of cards, each with a particular message thereon, and certain of the squares of the path having a selected symbol thereon designating that one of the cards is to be selected from the deck.

4. The game board combination defined in claim 1, and which includes a deck of Status cards, each with a particular message thereon, and certain ones of the squares of the path having a selected symbol thereon designating that one of the Status cards is to be selected from the deck.

5. The game board combination defined in claim 1, and which includes a deck of Jet Set cards, each with a particular message thereon, and certain ones of the squares of the path having a selected symbol thereon designating that one of the Jet Set cards is to be selected from the deck.

6. The game board combination defined in claim 1, and which includes a deck of Bank cards each with a particular message thereon, and certain ones of the squares of the path having a selected symbol thereon designating that one of the Bank cards is to be selected from the deck.

7. The game board combination defined in claim 1, in which certain ones of the game pieces contain the insignia of known motor cars thereon.
datetime,flow2018-04-13,998877.02018-04-14,998877.0
# C_2010264EN.01002301.xml

| 29.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 264/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 264/23

---

Statement of revenue and expenditure of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex) for the financial year 2010 — Amending Budget No 1

(2010/C 264/06)

REVENUE

| Title
  Chapter | Heading | Budget 2010 | Amending budget No 1 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 9 |
| REVENUE |
| 9 0 | SUBSIDIES AND CONTRIBUTIONS | 87 917 000 | 373 843 | 88 290 843 |
| | Title 9 — Total | 87 917 000 | 373 843 | 88 290 843 |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 87 917 000 | 373 843 | 88 290 843 |

Title

Chapter

Heading

Budget 2010

Amending budget No 1

New amount

9

9

REVENUE

REVENUE

9 0

SUBSIDIES AND CONTRIBUTIONS

87 917 000

373 843

88 290 843

Title 9 — Total

Title 9 — Total

87 917 000

87 917 000

373 843

373 843

88 290 843

88 290 843

GRAND TOTAL

GRAND TOTAL

87 917 000

87 917 000

373 843

373 843

88 290 843

88 290 843

EXPENDITURE

| Title
  Chapter | Heading | Appropriations 2010 | Amending budget No 1 | New amount |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 |
| STAFF |
| | Title 1 — Total | 20 085 000 | | 20 085 000 |
| 2 |
| OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE |
| | Title 2 — Total | 10 894 000 | | 10 894 000 |
| 3 |
| OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES |
| 3 0 | OPERATIONS | 42 738 000 | 373 843 | 43 111 843 |
| | Title 3 — Total | 56 938 000 | 373 843 | 57 311 843 |
| 4 |
| EARMARKED EXPENDITURE |
| | Title 4 — Total | p.m. | | p.m. |
| | GRAND TOTAL | 87 917 000 | 373 843 | 88 290 843 |

Title

Chapter

Heading

Appropriations 2010

Amending budget No 1

New amount

1

1

STAFF

STAFF

Title 1 — Total

Title 1 — Total

20 085 000

20 085 000

20 085 000

20 085 000

2

2

OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE

OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE

Title 2 — Total

Title 2 — Total

10 894 000

10 894 000

10 894 000

10 894 000

3

3

OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES

OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES

3 0

OPERATIONS

42 738 000

373 843

43 111 843

Title 3 — Total

Title 3 — Total

56 938 000

56 938 000

373 843

373 843

57 311 843

57 311 843

4

4

EARMARKED EXPENDITURE

EARMARKED EXPENDITURE

Title 4 — Total

Title 4 — Total

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

p.m.

GRAND TOTAL

GRAND TOTAL

87 917 000

87 917 000

373 843

373 843

88 290 843

88 290 843

---
#### PEOPLE ex rel. MANHATTAN RY. CO. v. BARKER et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 22, 1896.)

Proceeding on the relation of the Manhattan Railway Company against Edward P. Barker and others.

No opinion. Motion to resettle order granted.