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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7652

MAURO ABOYTES-VERA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD ANGELONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-98-465-R)

Submitted: January 7, 1998 Decided: January 21, 1999

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mauro Aboytes-Vera, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Bain Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Mauro Aboytes-Vera appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See Aboytes-Vera v. Angelone, No. CA-98-

465-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 22, 1998). 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.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50439-50440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17025]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34743]


BNSF Railway Company--Temporary Trackage Rights Exemption--Union 
Pacific Railroad Company

    Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP), pursuant to a written trackage 
rights agreement entered into between UP and the BNSF Railway Company 
(BNSF), has agreed to grant temporary overhead trackage rights to BNSF 
over UP's rail line between Valley Junction, IL, UP milepost 0.00, and 
Rockview Junction, MO, UP milepost 131.3, a distance of approximately 
131.3 miles.

[[Page 50440]]

    The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on August 15, 2005, 
and the temporary trackage rights will expire on October 16, 2005. The 
purpose of the temporary trackage rights is to allow BNSF to bridge a 
limited number of its trains while its main lines are out of service 
due to programmed track, roadbed, and structural maintenance.
    As a condition to this exemption, any employee affected by the 
acquisition of the temporary trackage rights will be protected by the 
conditions imposed in Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.--Trackage Rights--BN, 
354 I.C.C. 605 (1978), as modified in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.--Lease 
and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980), and any employee affected by the 
discontinuance of those trackage rights will be protected by the 
conditions set out in Oregon Short Line R. Co.--Abandonment--Goshen, 
360 I.C.C. 91 (1979).
    This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(8). If it contains 
false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. 
Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed 
at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically 
stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 34743, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a 
copy of each pleading must be served on Michael E. Roper, Senior 
General Attorney, BNSF Railway Company, P. O. Box 961039, Fort Worth, 
TX 76161-0039.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: August 22, 2005.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-17025 Filed 8-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
RE: Case No. 15-0170

COA #: 12-14-00343-CV

STYLE: CAROLE ANN WALLACE

v. BARBARA LOUISE HERNANDEZ

Petitioner's motion for rehearing was this 

the above styled and numbered case.

DAT

TC#: 2014C-0199

MS. CATHY S. LUSK

CLERK, TWELFTH COURT OF

1517 WEST FRONT, SUITE 3

TYLER, TX 75702
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11.1

STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

Basic earnings per share are computed by dividing earnings available to common
shares by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the
period.

Diluted earnings per share are computed by dividing the earnings available to
common shares by the weighted average number of common shares, common equivalent
shares and common shares assumed converted from potentially dilutive securities
outstanding during the period.

For purposes of computing diluted earnings per share, common equivalent shares
include the average number of common shares issuable upon the exercise of all
employee stock options, if dilutive, less the common shares which could have
been purchased at the average market price during the period with the assumed
proceeds, including the "windfall" tax benefits, from the exercise of the
options, awards and subscriptions.
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Demetrice GREENE.

No. 92P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 2007.

Robert Demetrice Greene, Pro Se.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 12th day of February 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Pitt County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 8th day of March 2007."
STATE v. MARK.

No. COA06-496.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 6, 2007.

Certification March 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Guilford (01CRS105414, 01CRS105416, 01CRS105410).

Case reported without published opinion. Appeal dismissed in 01CRS105410 and 01CRS105416; Affirmed in 01CRS105414.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN ITS REPORT ON FORM 10-Q
FOR THE  QUARTERLY  PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000929299
<NAME>                        ISOLYSER COMPANY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                               5,801
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       23,790
<ALLOWANCES>                                         1,685
<INVENTORY>                                         24,652
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    62,349
<PP&E>                                              31,407
<DEPRECIATION>                                      16,504
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     110,567
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               23,264
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                40
<OTHER-SE>                                          68,448
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       110,567
<SALES>                                             34,769
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    34,769
<CGS>                                               23,799
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       23,799
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    10,558
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     625
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (162)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           205
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (367)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (367)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
#### Anna Delgado, Respondent, v New York City Housing Authority, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 43]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruditzky, J.), dated September 10, 2004, which granted the plaintiffs motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action pursuant to CPLR 3216, to restore the action to the calendar, and for leave to file a note of issue, and denied its cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

A court may not dismiss an action based on neglect to prosecute unless the CPLR 3216 statutory preconditions to dismissal are met *(see Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co.,*89 NY2d 499, 502-503 [1997]; *Akpinar v John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.,*302 AD2d 337 [2003]; *Murray v Smith Corp.,*296 AD2d 445, 447 [2002]; *Schwartz v Nathanson,*261 AD2d 527 [1999]). The compliance conference order dated January 7, 2003, could not be deemed a 90-day demand pursuant to CPLR 3216 because it gave the plaintiff only 87 days within which to file the note of issue *(see Vasquez v Big Apple Constr. Corp.,*306 AD2d 465 [2003]; *Beepat v James,*303 AD2d 345 [2003]; *Halali v Evanston Ins. Co.,*288 AD2d 260, 261 [2001]). Furthermore, the subsequent so-ordered stipulation between the parties dated December 19, 2003, which extended the plaintiffs deadline for filing a note of issue until February 16, 2004, was also insufficient to constitute a 90-day demand since it did not provide the required 90-day notice and it failed to advise the plaintiff that the failure to comply with the demand would serve as the basis for a motion to dismiss the action *(see O’Connell v City Wide Auto Leasing,*6 AD3d 682 [2004]; *Akpinar v John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.,*302 AD2d 337 [2003]; *Murray v Smith Corp.,*296 AD2d 445 [2002]). Because the compliance conference order *523and the so-ordered stipulation did not meet the statutory preconditions pursuant to CPLR 3216, there was a failure of a condition precedent, and the court was not authorized to dismiss the action on its own motion *(see Schwartz v Nathanson, supra; cf. Vinikour v Jamaica Hosp., 2*AD3d 518 [2003]). Accordingly, the plaintiffs motion, in effect, to vacate the dismissal of the action was properly granted. Adams, J.P., Cozier, Ritter and Skelos, JJ., concur.
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-10066 Summary Calendar

ROBERT RICH, Petitioner-Appellant

v. WARDEN R. TAMEZ, FCI Fort Worth, Respondent -Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:11-CV-206

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert Rich, federal prisoner # 19 3 5 1

- 0 7 7 , appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as an abuse of the writ. Our review is for an abuse of discretion. See James v. Cain , 56 F.3d 662, 665 (5th Cir. 1995). A § 2241 petition is considered to be abus iv e if i t raises “the same legal issue” addressed and resolved in a prior filing. United States v. Tubwell , 37 F.3d 175, 177-78 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Williams v. Tamez , 466 F

. Ap p ’ x 3 2 6, 327 (5th Cir. 2012) (fi n di n g th a t district court did not abuse its discretion in U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 5, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-10066 Document: 00512011377 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/05/2012No. 12-10066

dismissing a § 2241 petition as an abuse of the writ where the petition raised the

same legal issue as a prior petition). Despite Rich’s purported modifications to his second § 2241 petition wh i c h would allow him to bring a Richardson claim under the savings clause, the legal issue remains the same. Moreover, Rich’s arguments that his second petition was not successive, that the di s t rict court should not have dismissed his petition sua sponte, and that the district court’s sanction warning was unfair, all are without merit. The appeal is without arguable merit and therefore frivolous. See Howard

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Th e G o v ernment’s motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous is GRANTED. The Government’ s alternative moti o n f

o r s u m mary affirmance or an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED. Rich is warned that future frivolous filings will result in the imposition of sanction s , i n c luding monetary sanctions and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court or any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.

2 Case: 12-10066 Document: 00512011377 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/05/2012
STATE v. Iziah BARDEN.

No. 96A01-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 8, 2007.

William P. Hart, Senior Deputy Attorney General, John G. Barnwell, Assistant Attorney *803General, Ellen B. Scouten, Special Deputy Attorney General, G. Dewey Hudson, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 4th day of January 2007 by Defendant for Extension of Time to Complete Proposed Record on Appeal:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 18th day of January 2007 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12. By order of the Court in conference this the 8th day of January 2007."
Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report of Paragon Real Estate Equity and InvestmentTrust (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2007 (the “Report”) with theSecurities and Exchange Commission, I, James C. Mastandrea, Chairman of the Board, Chief ExecutiveOfficer and President and I, John J. Dee, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President, of theCompany, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.      PARAGON REAL ESTATE EQUITY AND INVESTMENT TRUST
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3218 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3218

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To extend the pilot program for volunteer groups to obtain criminal 
                       history background checks.

    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 ``Criminal History Background Checks 
Pilot Extension Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PILOT PROGRAM.

    Section 108(a)(3)(A) of the PROTECT Act (42 U.S.C. 5119a note) is 
amended by striking ``a 60-month'' and inserting ``a 66-month''.

            Passed the Senate June 26, 2008.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3218

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To extend the pilot program for volunteer groups to obtain criminal 
                       history background checks.
```
STATE v. COOPER.

No. COA06-460.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 6, 2007.

Certification March 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Forsyth (00CRS40391, 00CRS57553, 00CRS57958, 01CRS4207).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed, remanded for correction of clerical error.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

AMY HAIR
, Appellant,

v.

CAMMY HAIR
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 13

- 2063

[ March 18, 2015 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Timothy P. McCarthy , Judge; L.T. Case No.

502013DR003796XX

.

Michael L. Cohen, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No brief filed for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

We reverse the final judgment of injunction for protection against

domestic violence.

Section 741.30(1)( a), Florida Statutes (2012), provides that a family or household member may file a petition for protection against domestic violence if that person is “either the victim of domestic violence as defined

in s. 741.28 or has reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming the victim of any act of domestic violence.” See Malchan v. Howard, 29 So. 3d 453, 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Domestic violence is defined as “any assault, aggravated assault, battery, aggravated battery, sexual assaul t, sexual battery, stalking, aggravated stalking, kidnapping, false imprisonment, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death of one family or household member by another family or household member.” § 741.28(2), Fla. Stat. (2012).

To determine whether the victim’s fear of imminent domestic violence is reasonable, “ ‘ the trial court must consider the current allegations, the parties’ behavior within the relationship, and the history of the- 2

-

relationship as a whole. ’ ” Malchan, 29 So. 3d a t 454 (quoting Giallanza v. Giallanza, 787 So. 2d 162, 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)).

In order to obtain an injunction against domestic violence, the petitioner must be the object of “malicious harassment that consists at the very least of some threat of immin ent violence, which excludes mere uncivil behavior that causes distress or annoyance.” Young v. Young, 96 So. 3d 478, 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “An isolated incident of domestic violence that occurred years before the filing of the petition for injunction is

insufficient.” Arnold v. Santana, 122 So. 3d 512, 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

In this case, the petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence that she was a victim of domestic violence or was in imminent danger of becoming a victim of domestic violence. That a daughter does not wish to see or

interact with her mother is not a ba sis for the issuance of a domestic violence restraining order. See Stone v. Stone , 128 So. 3d 239, 24 1 (Fla.

4 th DCA 2013). Nor did appellant’s violation of an order entered as part of a domestic relations case support the entry of the restraining order in

this case.

We therefore reverse and remand with instructions to vacate the final judgment of injunction for protection.

G ROSS
, C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for re hearing.
IN RE A.D.C.

No. COA06-1027.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed March 20, 2007.

Certification Date April 9, 2007.

Appeal from Cleveland (05J98).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Affirmed.
John DOE (a pseudonym) v. I.D. CONSULTANTS, P.A. & Infusion Care Specialists, Philip C. Lackey, M.D., and Denise (last name unknown).

No. 520P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2006.

David W. McDonald, for John Doe.

Norman F. Klick, Jr., Greensboro, for I.D. Consultants, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 27th day of September 2006 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th day of September 2006."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           8,972
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,037
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,220
<PP&E>                                         284,591
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 402,917
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,012
<BONDS>                                        180,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           303
<OTHER-SE>                                     163,844
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   402,917
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               252,948
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,218
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               158,636
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,808
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,194)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (29,394)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (29,394)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.97)


</TABLE>