alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 12 - 00073 - CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A CHILD

---------- FROM THE 231ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Robin Dumas filed her notice of appeal on February 22, 2012. On February 24, 2012, we notified Appellant of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction over her appeal because there is no signed, final order in this case and that her notice of appeal was premature. See Tex. R. App. P. 2 6.1(a), 27.1(a). We informed Appellant that unless she or any party desiring to continue the appeal furnished this court with a signed copy of the order that Appellant seeks to appeal, we would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex.

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

R. App . P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We have received no response to our letter nor a copy of a signed order from the trial court in this case. Texas appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final orders or judgments unless a statute permits an interlocutory appeal

. Cherokee Water Co. v. Ross , 698 S.W.2d 363, 365 (Tex. 1985) . There is no signed order or judgment in this

case. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM
PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGS TON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.
DELIVERED: May 3, 2012
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Isabel LOPEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-2049.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

June 3, 2011.

Teresa Raymond, Office of the United States Attorney, Las Cruces, NM, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Richard C. Cauble, Las Cruces, NM, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, GORSUCH and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver contained in defendant Jose Isabel Lopez-Rodriguez’s plea agreement. The defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 kilograms or more of marijuana and unlawful reentry of a previously deported alien. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the defendant waived his right to appeal his conviction or his sentence, provided his sentence was within the statutory maximum authorized by law. The defendant’s sentence of thirty-three months’ imprisonment was well below the statutory maximum penalty of twenty years’ imprisonment for each conviction. Nevertheless, the defendant filed a notice of appeal.

The government filed a motion to enforce the plea agreement pursuant to *United States v. Hahn,*359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir.2004) (en banc) (per curiam). In response, the defendant’s counsel stated that there are no non-frivolous arguments that can be presented in response to the motion to enforce, citing *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). This court gave the defendant an opportunity to file a pro se *796response, *see id,*but to date, the defendant has not filed a response to the motion to enforce.

Under *Anders,*we have reviewed the motion and the record and we conclude that the defendant’s proposed appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights, and that enforcing the waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. *See id,*359 F.3d at 1325 (describing the factors this court considers when determining whether to enforce a waiver of appellate rights).

Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to enforce the appeal waiver and DISMISS the appeal.

*

 This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th.Cir. R. 32.1.
[864 NE2d 606, 832 NYS2d 476]

#### Nancy Giandana, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Anna E. Demuth, Deceased, Respondent, v Providence Rest Nursing Home et al., Defendants. Providence Rest Nursing Home, Third-Party Plaintiff, v Ramar Services, Inc., Third-Party Defendant, and Becky Akosah, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Decided February 20, 2007

*860APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Fiedelman & McGaw,*Jericho *(James K. O’Sullivan*of counsel), for third-party defendant-appellant.

*Marshall E. Bloomfield,*Bronx *(Michael B Bloomfield*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment against Providence Rest Nursing Home denied, and the certified question answered in the negative.

Under plaintiffs theory of liability, third-party defendant Akosah was the only witness to the alleged negligent acts involving decedent. Nonetheless, Akosah has yet to be deposed or to otherwise participate in discovery. CPLR 1008 grants a third-party defendant all “the rights of a party adverse to the other parties in the action, including the right to counter-claim, cross-claim and appeal.” In this appeal by third-party defendant Akosah, questions of fact relating to how decedent was injured, whether Akosah was involved, and whether the nursing home was otherwise negligent precluded a grant of partial summary judgment.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith and Pigott concur in memorandum; Judge Jones taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Salcedo, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arnold Fraiman, J.), rendered on December 6, 1984, unanimously affirmed. Motion by defendant-appellant for leave to file a *pro se*supplemental brief denied. No opinion. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Rosenberger and Wallach, JJ.
# C_2021314EN.01000501.xml

| 6.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/5

---

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/849, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1304, and in Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1509, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1300 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

(2021/C 314/04)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in Annex II and Annex III to Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2021/1304 (2), and in Annex XV and Annex XVI to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 (3), as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1300 (4) concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

The Council of the European Union has determined that the restrictive measures provided for in Decision (CFSP) 2016/849, as amended by Decision (CFSP) 2021/1304, and Regulation (EU) 2017/1509, as implemented by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1300, should continue to apply to the persons designated in Annex II and Annex III to Decision (CFSP) 2016/849, and in Annex XV and Annex XVI to Regulation (EU) 2017/1509. The grounds for listing of those persons are set out in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated on the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 35 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned lists should be reconsidered, before 28 February 2022, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council's periodic review, in accordance with Article 36(2) of Decision (CFSP) 2016/849 and Article 34(7) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1509.

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 141, 28.5.2016, p. 79.

(2)  OJ L 283, 6.8.2021, p. 13.

(3)  OJ L 224, 31.8.2017, p. 1.

(4)  OJ L 283, 6.8.2021, p. 1.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM UNISON'S
UNAUDITED  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE 3 MOS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE TO SUCH  CONSOLIDATED  FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          6,417
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  42,047
<ALLOWANCES>                                    7,176
<INVENTORY>                                     2,373
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               49,759
<PP&E>                                         33,108
<DEPRECIATION>                                  7,658
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                194,510
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         196,692
<BONDS>                                       171,485
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            5
<OTHER-SE>                                    (38,858)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  194,510
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               54,677
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  47,195
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                6,237
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  264
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              5,800
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,819)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,819)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,819)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2263 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2263

     To rename the Office of Space Commerce and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 12, 2015

   Mr. Rohrabacher (for himself, Mr. Smith of Texas, and Mr. Babin) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                     Science, Space, and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To rename the Office of Space Commerce and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Office of Space Commerce Act''.

SEC. 2. RENAMING OF OFFICE OF SPACE COMMERCIALIZATION.

    (a) Chapter Heading.--
            (1) Amendment.--The chapter heading for chapter 507 of 
        title 51, United States Code, is amended by striking 
        ``COMMERCIALIZATION'' and inserting ``Commerce''.
            (2) Conforming amendment.--The item relating to chapter 507 
        in the table chapters for title 51, United States Code, is 
        amended by striking ``Commercialization'' and inserting 
        ``Commerce''.
    (b) Definition of Office.-- Section 50701 of title 51, United 
States Code, is amended by striking ``Commercialization'' and inserting 
``Commerce''.
    (c) Renaming.--Section 50702(a) of title 51, United States Code, is 
amended by striking ``Commercialization'' and inserting ``Commerce''.

SEC. 3. FUNCTIONS OF THE OFFICE OF SPACE COMMERCE.

     Section 50702(c) of title 51, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``Commerce.'' and inserting ``Commerce, including to--
            ``(1) foster the conditions for the economic growth and 
        technological advancement of the United States space commerce 
        industry;
            ``(2) coordinate space commerce policy issues and actions 
        within the Department of Commerce;
            ``(3) represent the Department of Commerce in the 
        development of United States policies and in negotiations with 
        foreign countries to promote United States space commerce;
            ``(4) promote the advancement of United States geospatial 
        technologies related to space commerce, in cooperation with 
        relevant interagency working groups; and
            ``(5) provide support to Federal Government organizations 
        working on Space-Based Positioning Navigation, and Timing 
        policy, including the National Coordination Office for Space-
        Based Position, Navigation, and Timing.''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 20

                             OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

        Harry Puglisi, Treasurer of The Money Store Inc. (the "Servicer"), in
accordance with Section 7.04 of The Pooling and Servicing Agreement (the
"Agreement") dated as of May 31, 1996 wherein The Money Store is the "Servicer"
states the following:

               (I)   the Servicer has fully complied with the provisions of
                     Articles V and VII;

               (ii)  the Claims Administrator has fully complied with Section
                     5.15;

               (iii) a review of the activities of the Servicer during 1996 and
                     of its performance under the Agreement has been made under
                     my supervision; and

               (iv)  to the best of my knowledge, based on my review, the
                     Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the
                     Agreement throughout 1996 and there has been no default in
                     the fulfillment of any such obligation.

                                                      THE MONEY STORE INC.

                                                  by:     /s/  Harry Puglisi
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                          Harry Puglisi
                                                          Treasurer
#### The State v. W. F. Bledsoe.

When the State appeals from a judgment quashing an indictment, unless the defendant enter into recognizance, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction, and the appeal will be dismissed. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 3187, Note 771.)

Appeal from Austin. The case was tried before Hon. James E. Shepard, a special judge.

The defendant was indicted for swindling. He moved to quash the indictment, which motion was sustained. The State appealed, but the defendant gave no bond.

*Sayles §• Bassetts,*for the appellee,

moved to dismiss the appeal, and cited Paschal’s Digest, article 3187, and The State v. Paschal, 22 Tex., 584.

Ho brief for the state has been furnished to the *Reporter.*

Morrill, O. J.

—Defendant was indicted for swindling, indictment quashed, the state appeals, and it nowhere appears that Bledsoe entered into recognizance, as is required by statute;

We deem it unnecessary to repeat what has been often said in similar cases. For reasons stated in The State v. Fatheree, 23 Tex., 202, the appeal is

Dismissed.
#### ZIEGLER, Appellant, v. LAMB, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July, 1896.)

Action by William Ziegler against Hugh Lamb.

No opinion. Order modified so as to provide as follows: “It is ordered that plaintiff serve a verified bill of particulars upon the attorneys for the defendant within 20 days after the service of a copy of this order upon the attorneys for plaintiff, which said bill of particulars shall state specifically the items of the alleged injury to the building of the plaintiff, and the amount of damage each specific item of injury thereto causes,”—with $10 costs and disbursements to abide the event. See 40 N. Y. Supp. 65.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY BERNARD SMITH, Jr.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

STEVE ALBRITTON, Associate Warden ; S. KLUGER, Correctional Lt.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 17

- 16379

D.C. No. 5:16

- cv

- 00156

- LHK

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2018 **

Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Anthony Bernard Smith, Jr., appeals pro se from the

district court’s summary judgment for failure to exhaust administrative remedies in

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action related to daytime congregational prayer. We have

jurisdiction u nder 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Williams v. Paramo

,

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

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

# FILED

AUG 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 16379

775 F.3d 1182, 1191 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Smith failed

to properly exhaust his administrative remedies, and failed to raise a genuine

dispute of material fact as to whether there was “something in his particular case

that made the existing and generally available administrative remedies effectively

unavailable to him.” Albino v. Baca , 747 F.3d 1162, 117 1

- 7 2 (9th Cir. 2014) (en

banc); see also Woodford v. Ngo , 548 U.S. 81, 90 (2006) (requiring proper

exhaustion, which means “using all steps that the agency holds out, and doing so

properly (so that the agency addre sses the issues on the merits)” (emphasis,

citation, and internal quotation marks omitted)). Contrary to Smith’s contention,

the 2013 group grievance was not duplicative of the issues raised in this case

.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2021504EN.01003201.xml

| 14.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 504/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 504/32

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10439 – DP WORLD / SYNCREON)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 504/06)

On 23 November 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 policy’ 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 policy’ 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 32021M10439. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10439. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 23, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20461 Conference Calendar

ROBERT JEROME NEWSOME, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TEXAS BOARD OF PARDON & PAROLE; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CV-240

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert Jerome Newsome, Texas prisoner # 650726, appeals the district court’s 28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal as frivolous of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, asserting that the defendants violated his constitutional rights in determining his parole eligibility and in calculating his sentence. We review a 28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissal as frivolous for an abuse ofNo. 04-20461 -2- discretion. See Martin v. Scott , 156 F.3d 578, 580 (5th Cir. 1998). Newsome contends that he is not challenging the fact or duration of his confinement and that the district court erred in determining that his suit is barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477 (1994). Contrary to Newsome’s contentions, he is challenging his continued confinement. Because Newsome brought his claims in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and because success in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action would necessarily imply the invalidity of his continued confinement, the claims are barred by Heck , and the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit as frivolous. See McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons & Paroles , 47 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 1995). Newsome’s argument that the district court erred in denying his motions for a default judgment is meritless. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED. The district court’s dismissal of Newsome’s complaint counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Newsome is cautioned that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.