alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed August 5, 2021. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-17-00207-CV

____________

LANDRY'S, INC. AND HOUSTON AQUARIUM, INC., Appellants

V.

ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, CARNEY ANNE NASSER, AND 

CHERYL CONLEY, Appellees

On Appeal from the 334th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-79698

ORDER

This case has been remanded to our court from the Supreme Court of Texas. 

Appellants filed a motion requesting leave to file supplemental briefing addressing

the issues that remain pending before this court following the Supreme Court of 

Texas’s opinion affirming and reversing this court’s judgment in part and 

remanding this cause to our court for further proceedings consistent with the 

Supreme Court’s opinion. We grant appellants’ motion and order supplemental 

briefing due by the following dates:

Appellants’ Brief is due September 7, 2021;

Appellees Response Brief is due: 30 days from the date appellants’ brief is 
filed;

Appellants’ Reply Brief, if any, is due: 20 days from the date appellees’

response brief is filed. 

All briefs shall comply with the length requirements of briefs provided for in 

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Poissant.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2589 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the Federal Communications Commission to publish on its Internet website changes to the 

rules of the Commission not later than 24 hours after adoption. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 1, 2015 

Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to require the 

Federal Communications Commission to publish on its 

Internet website changes to the rules of the Commission 

not later than 24 hours after adoption. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TIMELY AVAILABILITY OF CHANGES TO RULES 

4 OF THE COMMISSION. 

5 (a) AMENDMENT.—Section 4 of the Communications 

6 Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 154) is amended by adding at 

7 the end the following: 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2589 IH

1 ‘‘(p) Not later than 24 hours after adopting a provi2 sion that will appear in the Code of Federal Regulations, 

3 or an amendment to or repeal of a provision that appears 

4 in the Code of Federal Regulations, the Commission shall 

5 publish on the Internet website of the Commission the text 

6 of the provision adopted or repealed, or the text indicating 

7 how the provision is being amended, as the case may be.’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 this section shall apply with respect to a provision, or an 

10 amendment to or repeal of a provision, that is adopted 

11 after the date that is 30 days after the date of the enact12 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### O’CONNOR, Respondent, v. JOHNSON, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

April, 1896.)

Action by Martin O’Connor against Charles W. Johnson.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
# C_2021222EN.01002401.xml

| 11.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 222/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222/24

---

Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-subsidy measures

(2021/C 222/05)

1.   As provided for in Article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Union (1), the Commission gives notice that, unless a review is initiated in accordance with the following procedure, the countervailing measures mentioned below will expire on the date mentioned in the table below.

2.   Procedure

Union producers may submit a written request for a review. This request must contain sufficient evidence that the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and injury. Should the Commission decide to review the measures concerned, importers, exporters, representatives of the exporting country and Union producers will then be provided with the opportunity to amplify, rebut or comment on the matters set out in the review request.

3.   Time limit

Union producers may submit a written request for a review on the above basis, to reach the European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade (Unit G-1), CHAR 4/39, 1049 Brussels, Belgium (2) at any time from the date of the publication of the present notice but no later than three months before the date mentioned in the table below.

4.   This notice is published in accordance with Article 18(4) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037.

| Product | Country(ies) of origin or exportation | Measures | Reference | Date of expiry (3) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Certain graphite electrode systems | India | Anti-subsidy duty | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/421 of 9 March 2017 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council
  (OJ L 64, 10. 3.2017, p. 10) | 11. 3.2022 |

Product

Country(ies) of origin or exportation

Measures

Reference

Date of expiry (3)

Certain graphite electrode systems

India

Anti-subsidy duty

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/421 of 9 March 2017 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 18 of Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(OJ L 64, 10. 3.2017, p. 10)

11. 3.2022

---

(1)  OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 55.

(2)  TRADE-Defence-Complaints@ec.europa.eu

(3)  The measure expires at midnight (00:00) of the day mentioned in this column.

---
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03- 06 -00 804 -CV

Je ssi c a G ut ie r r e z , A ppe lla nt

v. Texas Depart m ent of Fam ily and P rote ctive Service s , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF MCCULLO CH COUNTY , 198TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2005 095 , HO NORAB LE EMI L KARL P ROH L , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N This is an appea l from an or der terminating the pare ntal rig hts of J essica Gutierre z to her minor child, J .E.G. Ms. Gutierre z’s court-appointed attorney filed an An de rs brief c ontaining a professional evaluation of t he record and demonst rating that there are no arguable gr ounds to be advanc ed on appe al. Se e An de rs v . Ca lif or nia , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). C ounsel conc ludes that the appeal i s without merit. The brief meets the re quirements of An de rs . See Taylor v. Texas De p’t of F am ily &Pr ote c tiv e Se rv

s. , 160 S.W .3d 641, 646-47 (Te x . App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (ap p l yi n g An de rs proce dure in a ppeal f rom termination of pa

renta l rig hts). A copy of c o un s e l’ s b r ie f w a s d e li v e r e d

to M s . G u ti e r

r e z, w h o w a s a dv is e d

o f h er rig ht to ex amine the r ecor d and to file a pro se brief. Ms. Gutierr ez submit ted a letter acknow ledg ing that she has a medical condition but denying that she has neg lected her child. After re viewingthe
rec ord, we have found nothing that would arguably support an appe al, and we ag ree that the appe al2

is frivolous and without merit. We affirm the judgme nt of t he trial court and further g rant c ounsel’s
m o t i o nt o w i th dr awa s at t o r n e y.

__________________________________________

J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: August 28, 2007
Argued and submitted November 20, 1998,

dismissed as moot February 10, 1999

#### KEITH ALAN CHRISTENSON, *Appellant, v.*S. Frank THOMPSON, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary, *Respondent.*

(95C-10949; CA A99430)

974 P2d 263

Mark J. Geiger filed brief for appellant.

Judy C. Lucas, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Dismissed as moot. *Hamel v. Johnson,*158 Or App 276, 974 P2d 260 (1999); *Jones v. Thompson,*156 Or App 226, 968 P2d 380 (1998).
#### Keith Ruben BRIDGEWATER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. LOCKART, Facility Sergeant; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-15795.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 8, 2011.*

Filed March 28, 2011.

Keith R. Bridgewater, Represa, CA, pro se.

Kelli Hammond, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Keith Ruben Bridgewater, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust, *Wyatt v. Terhune,*315 F.3d 1108, 1117 (9th Cir.2003), and for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to compel discovery, *Hallett v. Morgan,*296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bridgewater’s action because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies or demonstrate that he was excused from doing so. *See Woodford v. Ngo,*548 U.S. 81, 85, 93-95, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006) (holding that “proper exhaustion” is mandatory and requires adherence to administrative procedural rules); *see also Griffin v. Arpaio,*557 F.3d 1117, 1120 (9th Cir.2009) (affirming dismissal for failure to exhaust prison remedies where inmate’s grievance failed to “alert[] the prison to the nature of the wrong for which redress [was] sought”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bridgewater’s motions to compel discovery. *See Hallett,*296 F.3d at 751 (trial court’s broad discretion to deny discovery “will not be disturbed except upon the clearest showing that [the] denial of discovery resulted] in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

Bridgewater’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Charles Melideo, Appellant.

Memorandum: On this appeal from a judgment of conviction, entered following a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree and assault in the first degree, defendant contends that: (1) the court erred in its *Sandoval*ruling that if defendant were to take the stand in his own behalf at trial, he *1046could be cross-examined about the fact that he had another indictment pending against him charging him with criminal possession of a forged instrument and grand larceny; (2) the prosecutor improperly showed that defendant had a motive to rob because he was poor; and (3) certain comments made by the prosecutor in his summation were inflammatory and deprived defendant of a fair trial.

The trial court’s reliance on *People v Pavao*(59 NY2d 282) to permit the prosecutor to ask defendant on cross-examination whether he had an indictment pending against him was misplaced. *Pavao*has not changed the established rule that a defendant may not be asked if he has been indicted *(People v Rahming,*26 NY2d 411, 419; *People v Morrison,*194 NY 175, 178). However, should a defendant take the stand, he may be cross-examined concerning the facts underlying the pending indictment *(People v Edwards,*80 AD2d 993, 994).

During the trial, the defendant was asked, "By the way, Mr. Melideo, you currently have a charge of Criminal Possession of a Forged Instrument in the Second Degree and Grand Larceny in the Third Degree filed on December 23rd, 1983, do you not?” This one isolated question asked in accordance with the erroneous *Sandoval*ruling does not require a reversal. The overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt renders the improper *Sandoval*ruling harmless error *(see, People v Shields,*46 NY2d 764; *People v Bostwick,*92 AD2d 697; *People v Hicks,*88 AD2d 519, 520; *see also, People v Ferrara,*105 AD2d 497, 498).

We have reviewed defendant’s other claims of error and find that they are either unpreserved or without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Monroe County Court, Celli, J. — robbery, first degree, and assault, first degree.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Green and Lawton, JJ.
#### SEELEY, Respondent, v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1896.)

Action by Lawrence Seeley, as administrator, etc., against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company.

No opinion. Motion denied, with $10 costs. All concur. See 40 N. Y. Supp. 866.
Exhibit 32

XENOGEN CORPORATION

Section 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the annual report of Xenogen Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, the undersigned officers of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, that to the best of our knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 result of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                     |  |     |  |                                                                        
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 22, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ David W. Carter                                                    
|                     |  |     |  | David W. Carter                                                        
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board                      
|                     |  |    
|Date: March 22, 2006 |  |     |  | /s/ William A. Albright, Jr.                                           
|                     |  |     |  | William A. Albright, Jr.                                               
|                     |  |     |  | Senior Vice President, Finance & Operations and
Chief Financial Officer
#### Wills, Appellant, *v.*Union Bottling Co., Respondent.

*(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.*

June 27, 1890.)

Appeal from jury term.

Action by William Wills against the Union Bottling Company.

Argued before Truax and O’Gorman, JJ.

*Hatch & Warren,*for appellant. *Morgan & Warren,*for respondent.

Truax, J.

The action was brought by the plaintiff to recover a certain sum of money for a balance alleged to be due to the plaintiff from the defendant for unpaid salary as treasurer of the defendant. It was alleged in the answer, among other things, that the plaintiff had resigned his position as treasurer and abandoned the defendant’s business, and had not offered or tendered his services as treasurer to the defendant since the day of his resignation. The trial judge correctly stated the only question in the case when he left it to the jury to determine whether the plaintiff, in June, 1883, resigned his office of treasurer. That question the jury determined against plaintiff, and, as there was evidence to warrant such determination, the judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Agency for International Development

# SUMMARY:

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has submitted the following information collection to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30 days of this notification. Comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for USAID, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB),  Washington D.C. 20503. Copies of submission may be obtained by calling (202) 712-1365.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*OMB Number:*                     OMB 0412-0035.                

*Form Number:*                     AID 1550-2.                

*Title:*                     Private and Voluntary Organization Annual Return.                

*Type of Submission:*                     Renewal.                

*Purpose:*                     USAID is required to collect information regarding the financial support to private and voluntary organizations registered with the Agency. The information is used to determine the eligibility of PVOs to receive USAID funding.                

*Annual Reporting Burden:*

*Respondents:*                     442.                

*Total annual responses:*                     442.                

*Total annual hours requested:*                     1,320 hours.                

Dated: April 6, 2000.

Joanne Paskar,

Chief, Information and Records Division, Office of Administrative Services, Bureau of Management.

[FR Doc. 00-9422  Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6116-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 74 (Monday, April 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20439-20440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9475]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP00-168-000]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

April 11, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 3, 2000, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch), P.O. Box 1478, Houston, Texas 77251-1478, filed in Docket No. 
CP00-168-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 157.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 157.205 and 157.211) under the Natural 
Gas Act (NGA) for authorization to construct and operate delivery point 
facilities for service to Tyson Foods, Inc. (Tyson), an industrial end-
user, in Hinds County, Mississippi, under Koch's blanket certificate 
issued in Docket No. CP82-430-000, pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA, 
all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with 
the Commission and open to public inspection. This filing may be viewed 
on the web at http://www/ferc/fed.us/online/htm (call 202-208-222 for 
assistance).
    Koch requests authorization to construct and operate delivery point 
facilities to serve Tyson's industrial plant. It is stated that Koch 
will use the facilities to transport up to 850 dekatherms per day on a 
firm basis pursuant to the terms of Koch's FTS rate schedule for 
delivery to Tyson. Koch estimates the cost of the facilities at under 
$50,000. It is asserted that Koch has sufficient capacity to render the 
proposed service without disadvantage to its other existing customers 
and that Koch's tariff does not prohibit the addition of delivery point 
facilities. It is stated that the proposed service will not have an 
impact on Koch's annual deliveries or peak day operations even though 
the proposed service is firm in nature. It is explained that Tyson is 
currently being served by Reliant

[[Page 20440]]

Energy-Entex, a local distribution company.
    Any questions regarding the application may be directed to Kyle 
Stephens, Director of Certificates, at Koch Gateway Pipeline Company, 
P.O. Box 1478, Houston, Texas 77251-1478.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the 
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the 
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day 
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and 
not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-9475 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

LTNITED STATES COAST GUAR-D

Address of Administrative Law Judge Docketing Centeri

ALJ Docketing Center

U.S. Custom House

40 South Gay Street, Room 414

Baltimore, MD 712024022

Email: ali docketcenler((l]usc,r.mil

Phone: (410) 962-5100

Toll Free: (866) 612-7 524 [6IA-SKCG]

Fax: (410) 962-1746

Toll Free Fax: (877) 243-3453 ICGE-FILEi

COMPLANANT:

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

RESPONDENT: Steven Rodney Bluhm DOCKET NUMBER 202]-OO I 5

WITHDRAWAL FROMDOCKET

The Coast Guard initiated an administrative proceeding by frling a Complaint on January 11,

2023, seeking Revocation of Respondent's Merchant Mariner Credential.

On May l, 2023, the Coast Guard filed a Notice of Withdrawal from docket as:

The Respondent signed a Voluntary Sunender Agreement under 46 CFR$ 5.203.

This matter is removed from the docket and closed without prejudice effective this date.

Done and Dated May 2,2023 at

Baltimore, MD

l rzr-rn hl }'//erzz.

Lauren M. Meus

Hearing Docket Clerk

U.S. Coast Guard

By Direction of the Chief Administrative Law

Judge

CG ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY NI'MBER

7 610902
# C_2021459EN.01003801.xml

| 12.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 459/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 459/38

---

EUROPEAN HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING JOINT UNDERTAKING

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2020

(2021/C 459/38)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://eurohpc-ju.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2021-07/Annex%20to%20decision%2014.2021%202020%20Final%20Annual%20Accounts.pdf

---