alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-22-00382-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 96th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 096-326383-21

Before Sudderth, C.J.; Kerr and Walker, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

RAN LI, Appellant

V.

YAXIN LI, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant attempts to appeal the trial court’s order requiring the parties to 

appear for mediation. On October 5, 2022, we notified Appellant of our concern that 

this appeal did not appear to be from a final judgment or appealable interlocutory 

order. We informed Appellant that the appeal may be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction unless Appellant or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a 

response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 

44.3. Appellant responded that, because the order requires Appellant to mediate, the 

order is a “mandatory injunction” and is therefore an appealable “final interlocutory 

order.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a)(4) (allowing interlocutory 

appeal from an order that “grants or refuses a temporary injunction or grants or 

overrules a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction as provided by Chapter 65”).

The trial court’s order does not grant or refuse a temporary injunction nor does 

it grant or overrule a motion to dissolve a temporary injunction. Instead, the order 

requires the parties to appear at mediation; such an order is not an appealable

interlocutory order. See Banc of Am. Inv. Servs., Inc. v. Lancaster, No. 2-04-223-CV, 2004 

WL 1879597, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 24, 2004, no pet.) (per curiam)

(mem. op.) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction attempted interlocutory appeal from

order referring case to mediation). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
3

/s/ Brian Walker

Brian Walker

Justice

Delivered: November 10, 2022
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.                  

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - 47 CFR Part 73
          - [DA 01-1220, MM Docket No. 01-41, RM-10058]

# AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

# ACTION:

Final rule. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Commission, at the request of Sainte 51, L.P., permittee of station KNSO(TV), substitutes DTV channel 5 for DTV channel 38 at Merced, California.                         *See*66 FR 10982, February 21, 2001. DTV channel 5 can be allotted to Merced in compliance with the principle community coverage requirements of section 73.625(a) at reference coordinates (37-04-18 N. and 119-25-53 W.) with a power of 12.9, HAAT of 532 meters and with a DTV service population of 1452 thousand. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.                    

# DATES:

Effective July 2, 2001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 01-41, adopted May 16, 2001, and released May 18, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

# List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

      - Television
      - Digital television broadcasting

Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

# 47 CFR Part 73—[Amended]

1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows: 

Authority:47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.

§ 73.622 

2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments under California, is amended by removing DTV channel 38 and adding DTV channel 5 at Merced. 

Federal Communications Commission.

Barbara A. Kreisman,

Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01-12992 Filed 5-22-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 101 (Thursday, May 24, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 28651]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12943]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99-NE-21-AD; Amendment 39-12168; AD 2001-07-03]
RIN 2120-AA64


Airworthiness Directives; Hartzell Propeller Inc. Y-shank Series 
Propellers; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document makes a correction to Airworthiness Directive 
(AD) 2001-07-03 applicable to Hartzell Propeller Inc. Y-shank series 
propellers that was published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2001 
(66 FR 17806). The words ``and those'' in the first sentence of the 
Applicability paragraph of the regulatory text are incorrect and must 
be deleted. This document corrects the Applicability paragraph. In all 
other respects, the original document remains the same.

DATES: Effective on June 4, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tomaso DiPaolo, Aerospace Engineer, 
Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 
2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone (847) 294-
7031, fax (847) 294-7834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A final rule airworthiness directive 
applicable to Hartzell Propeller Inc. Y-shank series propellers (FR 
Doc. 01-8066) was published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2001 
(66 FR 17806). The following correction is needed:


Sec. 39.13  [Corrected]

    On page 17808, in the third column, in the Applicability Section of 
the regulatory text of AD 2001-07-03, in the first paragraph, beginning 
in the first line, ``This AD is applicable to all Hartzell Propeller 
Inc. Y-shank series propellers and those identified by hub serial 
numbers (SN's) in Table 1 of this airworthiness directive (AD).'' is 
corrected to read `` This AD is applicable to all Hartzell Propeller 
Inc. Y-shank series propellers identified by hub serial numbers (SN's) 
in Table 1 of this airworthiness directive (AD).''.

    Issued in Burlington, MA, on May 15, 2001.
Diane S. Romanosky,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft 
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 01-12943 Filed 5-23-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27620-27621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-12531]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

42 CFR Part 36


Meetings of the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on Joint Tribal 
and Federal Self-Governance

AGENCY: Indian Health Service, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Health and Human Services has established a 
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee on Joint Tribal and Federal Self-
Governance (Committee) to negotiate and develop a proposed rule 
implementing the Tribal Self-Governance Amendments of 2000 (the Act). 
We intend to publish the proposed rule for notice and comment no later 
than one year after the date of enactment of the Act (August 18, 2000 + 
one year), as required by section 517(a)(2) of the Act.

[[Page 27621]]


EFFECTIVE DATES: Meetings of the Committee are as follows:

1. June 11-12, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; June 13, 8:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m., St. 
Paul, MN.
2. July 10-12, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Seattle WA,
3. July 30-August 1, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Anchorage, AK.

ADDRESSES: The meeting locations are:

1. St. Paul, MN--Radisson City Center, 411 Minnesota St., St. Paul, MN 
55101, Phone: 1-800-333-3333.
2. Seattle, WA--Red Lion Hotel in South Center Area, 205 Strander 
Blvd., Seattle, WA 98188, Phone: 206-575-8220.
3. Anchorage, AK--Hilton Anchorage, 500 West 3rd Avenue, Anchorage, AK 
99501, Phone: 1-800-245-2527.

Written statements may be submitted to Paula Williams, Director, Office 
of Tribal Self-Governance, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, 
Room 5A-55, Rockville, MD 20857.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Williams, Director, Office of 
Tribal Self-Governance, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 
5A-55, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone 301-443-7821. (This is not a 
toll-free number.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: All meetings are open to the public without 
advance registration. Public attendance may be limited to the space 
available. Members of the public may make statements during the 
meetings to the extent time permits and file written statements with 
the Committee for its consideration. Submit your written statements to 
the address listed above. Summaries of the Committee meetings will be 
available for public inspection and copying ten days following each 
meeting at the same address.

    Dated: May 14, 2001.
Michel E. Lincoln,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 01-12531 Filed 5-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-16-M
**Exhibit99.5**

 

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

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of EnCana Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for theyear ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Sherri A. Brillon, ExecutiveVice-President & Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

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

 

2.            The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:                            | /s/  Sherri A. Brillon                                  |   |   |
|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                           | Sherri  A. Brillon                                      |   |
|                           | Executive  Vice-President & Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                           |                                                    |   |
| Dated:  February 18, 2010 |                                                    |

 

----
H. R. 2379 

One Hundred Sixteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen 

An Act 

To reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP GRANT PROGRAM 

REAUTHORIZATION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1001(a)(23) of title I of the Omnibus 

Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10261(a)(23)) 

is amended by striking ‘‘part Y’’ and all that follows and inserting 

‘‘part Y, $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2020, and each fiscal year 

thereafter.’’. 

(b) PROGRAM NAME.—Part Y of title I of the Omnibus Crime 

Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10531 et seq.) 

is amended by inserting before section 2501 the following: 

‘‘SEC. 2500. PATRICK LEAHY BULLETPROOF VEST PARTNERSHIP 

GRANT PROGRAM. 

‘‘The program under this part shall be known as the ‘Patrick 

Leahy Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program’.’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
# C_2017178EN.01002302.xml

| 6.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/23

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 23 March 2017 — Kampete v Council

(Case T-140/17 R)

((Application for interim measures - Restrictive measures - Democratic Republic of the Congo - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency))

(2017/C 178/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ilunga Kampete (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: O. Okito and A. Ouannès, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU, seeking suspension of the operation of Council Regulation (EU) 2016/2230 of 12 December 2016 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against persons acting in violation of the arms embargo with regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (OJ 2016 L 336 I, p. 1).

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
142 So. 438

#### Harvey BONE v. STATE.

7 Div. 132.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 12, 1932.

Rehearing Denied June 9, 1932.

Motley & Motley, of Gadsden, for petitioner.

Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.

POSTER, J.

Petition of Harvey Bone for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Bone v. State, 142 So. 437.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON, C. J., and GARDNER and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.
# C_2022207EN.01002401.xml

| 23.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 207/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 207/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 30 March 2022 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission

(Case T-325/17) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for airfreight - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and Switzerland on Air Transport - Coordination of elements of the price of air freight services (fuel surcharge, security surcharge, payment of commission on surcharges) - Exchange of information - Territorial jurisdiction of the Commission - Single and continuous infringement - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Amount of the fine - Value of sales - Gravity of the infringement - Extenuating circumstances - Anticompetitive conduct encouraged by the national authorities - Proportionality - Unlimited jurisdiction)

(2022/C 207/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (Amstelveen, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Smeets, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Dawes and C. Vollrath, acting as Agents, and by B. Doherty, Barrister)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in so far as it relates to the applicant and, in the alternative, for the partial annulment of the decision and a reduction in the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear one third of its own costs;

| 3. | Orders Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV to bear its own costs and pay two thirds of those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV to bear its own costs and pay two thirds of those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 24.7.2017.

---
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6092

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ORVILLE ISAAC WRIGHT, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CR-95-76-BR) Submitted: April 25, 2000 Decided: May 12, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Orville Isaac Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Orville Isaac Wright appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The district court denied this motion because it was filed beyond the three-year limitprescribed by Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. Wright asserts that the district court erred in calculating the deadline based on the date ofthe jury’s verdict, rather than the date when he completed appellate review. Contrary to Wright’s assertions, however, Rule 33 provides that the three-year limitations period runs from “the verdict or finding of guilt.” Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s ruling that Wright’s motion was untimely. We deny Wright’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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
#### Victoria GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 09-70999.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 16, 2013.*

Filed Aug. 26, 2013.

Nadeem H. Makada, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.

Linda Y. Cheng, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: REINHARDT, NOONAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

After removal proceedings were instituted against Victoria Garcia, a Mexican citizen, she conceded removability and applied for asylum and cancellation of removal. Garcia later withdrew her asylum claim.

An Immigration Judge denied relief and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) *747dismissed Garcia’s appeal. The BIA later denied Garcia’s subsequent motion to reopen based on changed country conditions. Garcia petitions for review of the denial of the motion to reopen. We deny her petition.

The motion to reopen asserted that the only person Garcia could live with in Mexico was her gay cousin. She argued that because gays are mistreated in Mexico, it would be dangerous for her to live with him. Even assuming that Garcia’s motion to reopen can be based on her cousin’s sexual orientation, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying it. The motion was premised on changed country conditions, and the evidence before the BIA suggested that conditions had improved for gays in Mexico.

DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7432

ALBERT JOHNSON, III,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JAMES PENDERGRAPH, Sheriff,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00305-GCM)

Submitted: October 20, 2009 Decided: October 27, 2009

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert Johnson, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Albert Johnson, III, appeals the district court’s

order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint under 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See Johnson v. Pendergraph , No.

3:09-cv-00305-GCM (W.D.N.C. July 27, 2009). 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
EXHIBIT 23.1

MCNAIR, MCLEMORE, MIDDLEBROOKS & CO., LLP

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

389 Mulberry Street  Post Office Box One 
Macon, GA 31202

Telephone (478) 746-6277  Facsimile (478) 743-6858

www.mmmcpa.com

RALPH S. McLEMORE, SR., CPA (1902-1981)

SIDNEY B. McNAIR, CPA (1913-1992)



|                                |  |  |  |                              
|------------------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|SIDNEY E. MIDDLEBROOKS, CPA, PC |  |  |  | RICHARD A. WHITTEN, JR., CPA 
|RAY C. PEARSON, CPA             |  |  |  | ELIZABETH WARE HARDIN, CPA   
|J. RANDOLPH NICHOLS, CPA        |  |  |  | CAROLINE E. GRIFFIN, CPA     
|WILLIAM H. EPPS, JR., CPA       |  |  |  | RONNIE K. GILBERT, CPA       
|RAYMOND A. PIPPIN, JR., CPA     |  |  |  | RON C. DOUTHIT, CPA          
|JERRY A. WOLFE, CPA             |  |  |  | CHARLES A. FLETCHER, CPA     
|W. E. BARFIELD, JR., CPA        |  |  |  | MARJORIE HUCKABEE CARTER, CPA
|HOWARD S. HOLLEMAN, CPA         |  |  |  | BRYAN A. ISGETT, CPA         
|F. GAY McMICHAEL, CPA           |  |  |  | DAVID PASCHAL MUSE, JR., CPA 

March 28, 2008

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report, dated
March 28, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Newnan Coweta Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiary included in this annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, into the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 relating to the Newnan Coweta Bancshares, Inc. 2001 Incentive Stock Option Plan (File #333-92440), as filed with the SEC on July 16, 2002.



LOGOMcNAIR, McLEMORE, MIDDLEBROOKS & CO., LLP