alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00411-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.G.P. & D.J.P., minor children

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-06-30038-CV

Honorable Spencer Whitewood Brown, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 26, 2015

DISMISSED

A copy of appellant’s notice of appeal was filed in this court on July 6, 2015. The trial 

court extended appellant’s time to pay the filing fee to July 17, 2015. Our record contains no 

evidence appellant is excused by statute or rule from paying the filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 

20. On July 27, 2015, this court ordered appellant to show cause in writing by August 3, 2015, 

that either: (1) the filing fee has been paid; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the 

filing fee. Appellant was advised that if she failed to respond within the time provided, this appeal 

would be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 42.3(c). Appellant did 

not respond or pay the filing fee. 

The appeal is DISMISSED for failure to pay the filing fee. See id.

PER CURIAM
#### In re HAVEMEYER’S ESTATE. In the matter of the judicial settlement, etc., of J. Lee Humfreville, one of the executors, etc., of Mary J. Havemeyer, deceased.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July, 1896.)

No opinion. Order reversed, and case sent hack to the surrogate to hear and determine de novo the claim against the estate, with $10 costs and disbursements to the appellant. See 38 N. Y. Supp. 292, 39 N. Y. Supp. 550, and 40 N. Y. Supp. 939.
* 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 Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.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. 95-50015 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus 0.11 ACRES OF LAND, ETC., ET Al., Defendants, WALTER W. COOPER, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-92-CA-858
- - - - - - - - - - December 5, 1995 Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Walter W. Cooper, proceeding pro se , appeals the district court's decision in the condemnation proceeding initiated by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior regarding the takingNo. 95-50015 -2- of his property under the power of eminent domain for use in the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. Cooper contests the district court's finding that he was entitled to compensation for only the subject property. He also contests the method used to appraise the property and the value determined by the court as "just compensation." The district court determined that the United States met its burden on the issue of eminent domain but that Cooper was entitled to $1,500 as just compensation. We have reviewed the record and the district court's memorandum ruling and find no clear error. Cooper also contends that he did not acquiesce in the taking, that he should have been allowed to accompany the appraiser for the appraisal, and that the United States purchased property that does not belong to him. Cooper failed to present these issues to the district court; thus, this court will not consider them. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court. AFFIRMED
# C_2021129EN.01000801.xml

| 13.4.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/8

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10174 — Macquarie/Aberdeen/Ucles JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 129/04)

On 25 March 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). 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:

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

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/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 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10174. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10174. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 6, 2013

NO. 03-12-00799-CV

Robert Cronin, Appellant

v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. a/k/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

THIS CAUSE having this day come on to be considered, and the Court being of the opinion that 

it is without jurisdiction of the cause and that the appeal should therefore be dismissed for want 

of jurisdiction: IT IS ACCORDINGLY considered, adjudged and ordered that the appeal is 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. It is FURTHER ordered that the appellant pay all costs 

relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below; and that this decision be certified 

below for observance.
# C_2021377EN.01001301.xml

| 17.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/13

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Cases where the Commission raises no objections or the measure does not constitute aid

(2021/C 377/02)

| Date of adoption of the decision | 29.7.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Aid number | SA.63536 (2021/N) |
| Member State | Germany |
| Region | — | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Bund: Liqiditätshilfen Fischerei BAR |
| Legal basis | Richtlinie zur Förderung von Liquiditätshilfen für Fischereiunternehmen im Rahmen der Umsetzung der Brexit-Anpassungsreserve |
| Type of measure | Scheme | — |
| Objective | Fisheries and aquaculture |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | Overall budget: EUR 5 (in millions)
  Annual budget: EUR 5 (in millions) |
| Intensity | 100 % |
| Duration (period) | until 31.12.2021 |
| Economic sectors | Marine fishing |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (BLE) |
| Haubachstraße 86, 22765 Hamburg |

Date of adoption of the decision

29.7.2021

Aid number

SA.63536 (2021/N)

Member State

Germany

Region

—

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Bund: Liqiditätshilfen Fischerei BAR

Legal basis

Richtlinie zur Förderung von Liquiditätshilfen für Fischereiunternehmen im Rahmen der Umsetzung der Brexit-Anpassungsreserve

Type of measure

Scheme

—

Objective

Fisheries and aquaculture

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 5 (in millions)

Annual budget: EUR 5 (in millions)

Intensity

100 %

Duration (period)

until 31.12.2021

Economic sectors

Marine fishing

Name and address of the granting authority

Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (BLE)

Haubachstraße 86, 22765 Hamburg

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm.

---
---

Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

In connection with the Annual Report of Garuda Capital Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, C. Robin Relph, Chief Executive Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(1)      The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)     
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|October 5, 2005          | 
|------------------------ | 
|                         | 
|                         | 
|/s/
      C. Robin Relph | 
|C. Robin Relph           | 
|Chief Executive Officer  | 

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Elliot Markowitz, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Qupeens County (Chetta, J.), *380rendered November 1, 1985, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find that the People proved beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s criminal responsibility for the fatal stabbing of his acquaintance *(see,*Penal Law former § 30.05, now § 40.15 [L 1984, ch 688, § 3]; *see also,*Penal Law § 25.00). Although the evidence indicated that the defendant suffers from a "schizo-affective” disorder, the People’s expert was of the opinion that the defendant was not experiencing any delusions at the time he committed the stabbing *(cf., People v Gonzalez,*100 AD2d 913). This expert’s testimony contains no serious flaw *(see, People v Hicks,*125 AD2d 332, 333, *lv denied*69 NY2d 881; *People v Jandelli,*118 AD2d 656, *lv denied*68 NY2d 668), and we note that one of the defendant’s experts acknowledged on cross-examination that the defendant knew he was inflicting fatal injuries and agreed that the defendant knew his actions would "run afoul of the law”. By its rendition of a guilty verdict on the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree *(see, People v Patterson,*39 NY2d 288, 302, *affd*432 US 197; *cf., People v Sears,*58 AD2d 693), the jury concluded that the defendant had the capacity to understand the nature and consequences of his conduct and knew that his conduct was wrong *(see, People v Wood,*12 NY2d 69). We discern no basis for disturbing that finding.

We do not agree with the defendant’s contention that prosecutorial misconduct during summation deprived him of a fair trial. While the prosecutor improperly denigrated the defendant’s experts and his defense *(see, People v Wood, supra,*at 77-78; *People v Langert,*105 AD2d 845, 846), the defendant’s present claims with respect thereto are not preserved for appellate review and, in any event, the remarks do not warrant reversal *(see, People v Langert, supra,*at 846). Moreover, the prosecutor’s summation was not otherwise unreasonable when evaluated in light of that of the defense *(see, People v Colon,*122 AD2d 151).

Finally, the defendant’s sentence is not excessive. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Lawrence and Harwood, JJ., concur.
#### Robert Del Gaizo, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Michael Del Gaizo, Deceased, et al., Respondents, v Angeline Del Gaizo, Individually and as Natural Guardian of John Del Gaizo and Others, Infants, et al., Defendants, and New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, Appellant.

— Casey, J.

Appeal from that part of a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term (Connor, J.), entered November 20, 1985 in Ulster County, which directed defendant New York State Teachers’ Retirement System to pay into court any and all benefits determined to be due to defendant Angeline Del Gaizo as a result of the death of Michael Del Gaizo.

This action involves conflicting claims to certain pension benefits and life insurance proceeds payable upon the death of decedent, Michael Del Gaizo, including the death benefit arising out of decedent’s membership in defendant New York State Teachers’ Retirement System. Defendant Angeline Del Gaizo is decedent’s second wife and the mother of two of his children. Plaintiffs are decedent’s children by his previous marriage. At the time of his death, decedent was separated from his second wife pursuant to a separation agreement which provided, *inter alia,*that each party waived and released any right or claim which either had to the estate, property or assets of the other, including retirement, pension, disability or other benefits. Despite the provisions of the separation agreement, Angeline Del Gaizo was listed as decedent’s primary beneficiary on the appropriate form on file with the Retirement System.

Recognizing that the Retirement System’s role in this dispute was that of a stakeholder, Special Term directed that the Retirement System pay decedent’s death benefit into court *(see, Matter of Demerritt v Levitt,*71 AD2d 757, *lv denied*48 NY2d 607; *Lade v Levitt,*33 AD2d 956, *appeal dismissed*27 NY2d 532), and dismissed the complaint against the Retirement System. On this appeal, the Retirement System concedes that Special Term had the authority to direct payment of the death benefit into court *(see,*CPLR 2701 [2]), but contends that in this case the court erred in interfering with the Retirement System’s obligation to pay the named beneficiary *(see, Caravaggio v Retirement Bd.,*36 NY2d 348).

The Retirement System’s appeal must be dismissed. Only an "aggrieved party” or a person substituted for it may appeal from an order or judgment (CPLR 5511; *see, Town of Massena v Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,*45 NY2d 482, 488). CPLR 2601 (a) provides that "[a] party paying money into court *816pursuant to the direction of the court is discharged thereby from all further liability to the extent of the money so paid in”. It is undisputed that the Retirement System’s obligation is to pay a death benefit to decedent’s beneficiary. Since this obligation is satisfied and the Retirement System is relieved of further liability upon payment of the death benefit into court pursuant to the judgment on appeal, we conclude that the Retirement System is not an aggrieved party within the meaning of CPLR 5511.

Appeal dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
Visit us on the web at www.uscg.mil/band.

Brief History

The United States Coast Guard Band is the premier band representing the United States Coast Guard and 

the Department of Homeland Security. The 55-member ensemble has performed at some of the most 

prestigious venues in the nation, including the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, Lincoln 

Center, and Carnegie Hall. The Band also has a rich history of performing internationally: it is especially 

honored to have been the first American military band to perform in the former Soviet Union, with concerts 

in Leningrad and the surrounding area in 1989. In 2008, the Coast Guard Band became the first premier 

American military band to perform a concert tour of Japan. In addition, the US Coast Guard Band toured 

Taiwan in July 2011.

Based at the US Coast Guard Academy in New London, Connecticut, the Coast Guard Band frequently 

appears in Washington, DC, at presidential and cabinet level functions on formal and informal occasions. 

Historic events include National Christmas Tree lighting ceremonies, the American Bicentennial 

Celebration with President Gerald Ford, World War II Fiftieth Anniversary events in England, and Inaugural 

celebrations for every President since Herbert Hoover. 

A number of notable vocal artists have appeared with the Coast Guard Band, including Placido Domingo, 

Marilyn Horne, Elizabeth Futral, Andy Williams, Roberta Flack, Lee Greenwood, Lorrie Morgan, Shirley 

Jones, Lonestar, and the Boys Choir of Harlem. Film, literary and television personalities have included 

Gregory Peck, Lucie Arnaz, Willard Scott, Walter Cronkite, John Amos, Alex Haley, and Richard Thomas. 

Coast Guard Band concerts have also featured instrumental artists such as Bill Watrous, Dale Clevenger, 

Slide Hampton, Cecil Bridgewater, Chris Vadala, David Shifrin, and Philip Smith. In 2008, under the 

direction of Maestro Leonard Slatkin, the Band performed a superb concert of music by Copland, Bach, 

and Hindemith, among others.

The United States Coast Guard Band was organized in March 1925 with the assistance of Lt. Charles 

Benter, leader of the United States Navy Band; Dr. Walter Damrosch, conductor of the New York 

Philharmonic; and “American March King” John Philip Sousa, former director of the United States Marine 

Band. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed congressional legislation resulting in the Coast Guard 

Band becoming the permanent, official musical representative of the nation’s oldest continuous seagoing 

service. This event also established the Coast Guard Band as one of our nation’s premier service bands.
#### Clark *et al.,*Appellants, v. Mikels, Respondent, *et al.*

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fourth Department.*

May 2, 1890.)

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6514
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LAWRENCE WOODARD, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CR-96-109) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 4, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Woodard, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Breeding Peters, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Lawrence Woodard appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a writ of audita querela. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Woodard , No. CR-96-109 (W.D. Va. Feb. 25, 2003). 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
PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

______

No. 08

- 3874

______

MUHAMMAD SAEED MALIK,

Petitioner

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,

Respondent

______

On Petition for Review from a n

Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(Board No. A46

- 964

- 203)

Immigration Judge: Honorable Mirlande Tadal

______

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

September 23, 2011

Before: FISHER, HARDIMAN and GREENAWAY, Jr., Circuit Judges

.

_____ _______

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion in the above case, filed October 4,

2011 , be amended as follows:

Page 3

, lines 2

- 3 ( the last sentence before Section I) , which read:

We will dismiss the petition for review.

shall read:

We will deny the petition for review.

By the Court,

Circuit Judge /s/ D. Michael Fisher

Dated: October 7, 2011MB/cc: M. Anne Hannigan, Esq.

Gopal T. Kukreja, Esq.

Daniel I. Smulow, Esq.

Paul F. Stone, Esq.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-7791

HAYWOOD WILLIAMS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-80-14-N, CA-95-957-2)

Submitted: February 7, 1996

Decided: February 29, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Haywood Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Janet S. Reincke, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Haywood Williams, Jr., appeals from district court orders denying

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion and denying reconsideration

thereof. We affirm.

Regarding the substance of the § 2255 motion, Williams's claim

that his convictions under 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 846, 848 (West 1981 &

Supp. 1995) violate the Double Jeopardy Clause is frivolous. This

court vacated his § 846 conviction in a prior decision and properly left

the § 848 conviction undisturbed. United States v. Williams, No. 88-

7400, 1991 WL 107588 at **1 (4th Cir. June 21, 1991) (as amended

July 15, 1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 949 (1991); see also United

States v. Johnson, 54 F.3d 1150, 1163 (4th Cir.) (only lesser-included

offense should be vacated), cert. denied, 64 U.S.L.W. 3248 (U.S.

1995).

Williams's second claim, that the § 848 conviction cannot stand

because the § 846 violation served as a predicate offense is also meritless. The § 846 violation may serve as a predicate offense. United

States v. Heater, 63 F.3d 311, 318 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 64

U.S.L.W. 3485 (U.S. 1996).

Regarding the motion for reconsideration, Williams contended that

the district court misconstrued the motion as one under § 2255 rather

than one under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35. The district court properly construed Williams's Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion as one under § 2255

because the only cognizable Rule 35 claim was frivolous and the

other claim was properly considered only under § 2255. United States

v. Pavlico, 961 F.2d 440, 443 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 848

(1992). Williams's other allegations in his motion for reconsideration

regarded claims not raised in the § 2255 motion and were, therefore,

inappropriate on motion for reconsideration. See Collison v. International Chem. Workers Union, Local 217, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir.

1994).

Therefore, we affirm the district court orders denying Williams's

§ 2255 motion and denying reconsideration of that order. We dis-

 2
pense 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

 3