alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## NUMBER 13

- 2 3

- 00 476

- CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

WILLARD WILLIS BAUGH JR.

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 24 th District Court

of Victoria County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina

This cause is before the court on a ppellant ’ s motion to dismiss th is appea l

.

Counsel for appellant and appellant signed the motion. We find the motion meet s the

requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) that appellant and attorney

must sign a written motion to dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.2(a). Without

passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal.2

Having dismissed the appeal at appellant ’s request, no motion for rehearing will

be entertained.

JAIME TIJERIN A

Justice

Do not publish.

T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed on the

7th day of December , 202 3

.
STATE of North Carolina v. Gary Rance HURLEY.

No. 38P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Irving Joyner, Durham, for Hurley.

Victoria L. Voight, Raleigh, C. Branson Vickory, III, for State of NC.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 637 S.E.2d 919.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of January 2007 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, 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 27th day of June 2007."
STATE v. Dane LOCKLEAR, Jr.

No. 578A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 8, 2007.

William P. Hart, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th day of January 2007 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 23rd day of February 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."
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## A IR 

## F ORCE 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS



### UNITED STATES ) No. ACM 40 238

Appellee ) )

v. ) ) ORDER
Alex M. COVEY ) Captain ( O

- 3 ) )
U.S. Air Force )

Appellant ) Panel 1

On 1 3 December 2022, Appellant submitt ed a Motion to Withdraw from Ap pellate Review and Motion to Attach. Specifically, Appellant moved to attach ; (1) DD Form 2330, Waiver/Withdrawal of Appellate Rights in General and Special Courts

- Martial Subject to Review by a Court of Criminal Appeals

, signed b y Appellant on 7 December 2022 and Appellant’s counsel o n 8 December 2022 ; and (2) a one

- page declaration from Appellant

. The Government did not submit any opposition

. Accordingly

, it is by the court on this 1 6 th day of December , 20 2 2

,

ORDERED :

Appellant’s Motion to Wit hdraw from Appellate Review and Motion to Attach are GRANTED . Appellant’s case is forwarded to the Appellate Records Branch, JAJM, for further processing in accordance with R ules for Courts

- Martial 1115(f)(3) and 1201

, Manual for C ourts

- Martial, United States (2019 ed.)

.

FOR THE COURT

ANTHONY F. ROCK, Maj, USAF Deputy Clerk of the Court
NUMBERS 13-19-00545-CV & 13-19-00547-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE FRAUDULENT HOSPITAL LIEN LITIGATION

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

On October 23, 2019, this Court granted Relator’s emergency motions for stay in 

appellate cause numbers 13-19-00545-CV and 13-19-00547-CV, and we ordered the trial 

court to stay all pending proceedings. On October 28, 2019, Real Parties in Interest filed 

motions in both appellate causes requesting that we reconsider our October 23, 2019 

order and lift the stay, and they filed motions in both causes requesting that in the 

alternative we clarify our October 23rd order. 
2

This Court, having examined and fully considered the motions, is of the opinion 

that the motions to reconsider our October 23, 2019 order and lift the stay should be 

denied and that the motions for clarification should be granted. Accordingly, we DENY 

the Real Parties in Interests’ motions requesting that we lift the stay in the trial court, and 

we GRANT the Real Parties in Interests’ motions requesting that we clarify our order to 

stay the proceedings in the trial court. We clarify that all proceedings in these causes are 

hereby STAYED and remain on hold including legal deadlines applicable to any party 

pending further order of the Court or resolution of these original proceedings. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is 

effective until the case is finally decided.”); In re Geomet Recycling LLC, 578 S.W.3d 82, 

91 (Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding) (explaining that § 51.014(b) “contains no exceptions to 

its mandatory stay of ‘all other proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of that 

appeal’”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

29th day of October, 2019.
#### Adam Solomon, Appellant, v Joseph Loszynski et al., Respondents.

[800 NYS2d 46]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), entered May 5, 2004, as, upon an order of the same court dated September 22, 2003, granting the motion of the defendants Joseph Loszynski and Deborah Loszynski, and the separate motion of the defendant Troy Beckwith, Sr., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them, is in favor of the defendants and against him dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Joseph Loszynski and Deborah Loszynski and adding thereto a provision severing the action against those defendants; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant Troy Beckwith, Sr., and one bill of costs payable by the defendants Joseph Loszynski and Deborah Loszynski to the plaintiff, the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against the defendants Joseph Loszynski and Deborah Loszynski, and the order is modified accordingly.

In premises liability cases alleging an injury caused by a defective condition, the plaintiff must show that the landowner either created the defective condition, or had actual or constructive notice thereof for such a period of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, it should have corrected it *(see McKeon v Town of Oyster Bay,*292 AD2d 574 [2002]; *Austin v Lambert,*275 AD2d 333, 334 [2000]). On their motion for summary judg*367ment, the defendants Joseph Loszynski and Deborah Loszynski established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp.,*68 NY2d 320 [1986]). However, contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, in opposition, the plaintiff raised triable issues of fact as to whether the staircase was in a dangerous or defective condition and whether the Loszynskis had actual or constructive notice thereof prior to its collapse *(see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra; see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557 [1980]).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.
JOYCE v. N.C. DEPT. OF CORRECTION.

No. 194P03-5.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th day of April 2007 by Defendant for Less Stringent Standard Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 3rd day of May 2007."
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 30, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51399-51400]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-17172]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board; Public 
Meeting

    A Dialogue with the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) 
National Advisory Board will take place at the Association of SBDCs 
National Conference in Baltimore, Maryland on Thursday, September 8, 
2005, starting at 10:30 a.m. until noon. This session will take place 
at the Marriott Waterfront Hotel, 700 Aliceanna Street, Board Room, 
Baltimore, Maryland 21202. The ``Dialogue'' session is an opportunity 
for state and regional SBDC Directors to discuss any issues 
(programmatic, policy, etc.) regarding the SBDC Program with the Board.
    Anyone wishing to attend must contact Erika Fischer, Senior Program 
Analyst, U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Small

[[Page 51400]]

Business Development Centers, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20416, telephone (202) 205-7045 or fax (202) 481-0681.

Matthew K. Becker,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-17172 Filed 8-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 167

_____________________________
J AMES S TRICKLAND , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Angela C. Dempsey , Judge

. September 28, 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , M AKAR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Crystal McBee Frusciante of the Frusciante Law Firm, P.A., Sunrise
, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and S amuel B. Ste inberg, Assistant At torney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert Roland GOODWIN.

No. 279P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

Nora Henry Hargrove, for Goodwin.

Isaac T. Avery, III, Special Counsel, C. Colon Willoughby, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 5th day of June 2007 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, 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 23rd day of August 2007."
HALL v. COHEN.

No. COA06-1531.

Court of appeals of North Carolina.

Filed September 18, 2007.

Certification Date October 8, 2007.

Appeal from Pitt (02CVS1382).

Case reported without published opinion affirmed.
STATE v. BORK.

No. COA05-1149.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 3, 2006

Certification Date October 23, 2006.

Appeal from Avery (03CRS50824, 03CRS1081)

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6893

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

J. C. WACHACHA,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-92-66-2-V, CA-97-8-2-1)

Submitted: April 29, 1999 Decided: May 4, 1999

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. C. Wachacha, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

J. C. Wachacha seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (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 United States v. Wachacha, Nos. CR-92-

66-2-V; CA-97-8-2-1 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 23, 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
IN RE B.M.

No. COA07-525.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed October 2, 2007.

Certification Date October 22, 2007.

Appeal from Harnett (06J217).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Reversed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                             26
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     531
<ALLOWANCES>                                       16
<INVENTORY>                                       245
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  955
<PP&E>                                            862
<DEPRECIATION>                                    348
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  2,281
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             658
<BONDS>                                           585
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          193
<OTHER-SE>                                        727
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    2,281
<SALES>                                           631
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  631
<CGS>                                             141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   86
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 13
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   179
<INCOME-TAX>                                       60
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               119
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      119
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.38



</TABLE>
IN RE H.M.W.

No. COA07-202.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 19, 2007

Certification Date July 9, 2007.

Appeal from Yadkin (05J36, 05J37).

Case reported without published opinion. Appeal dismissed; petition denied.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mario Tingling, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 323]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John A.K. Bradley, J.), rendered November 12, 2003, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of promoting prostitution in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 7V2 to 15 years and 1 year, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting the uncharged crimes evidence challenged by defendant on appeal since it went directly to the issue of whether defendant knowingly advanced or profited from prostitution, as required by Penal Law § 230.30. We do not find this evidence to be cumula*858tive or unduly prejudicial *(see People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233, 245 [1987]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Sullivan, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

         <ARTICLE> 5
         <LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MARCH
31, 1997, CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME
FOR THE THREE-MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE FOOTNOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                 MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               114
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      27,341
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   29,905
<PP&E>                                              2,978
<DEPRECIATION>                                      2,222
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     49,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              43,693
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                               26
<OTHER-SE>                                         (5,478)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       49,014
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    7,690
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       7,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     52
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       477
<INCOME-TAX>                                           34
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   443
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                          443
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21.1



                                            STATE OF INCORPORATION OR 
       SUBSIDIARIES                                ORGANIZATION
       ------------                         --------------------------

Florida Panthers Hockey Club, Ltd.                 Florida

Arena Development Company, Ltd.                    Florida

Arena Operating Company, Ltd.                      Florida

Decoma Miami Associates, Ltd.                      Florida

2301 SE 17th St. Ltd.                              Florida

Rahn Bahia Mar, Ltd.                               Florida

Panthers BRHC Limited                              Florida

Florida Panthers Ice Ventures, Inc.                Florida 

FPH/RHI Merger Corp., Inc.                         Florida

ResortHill, Inc.                                   Illinois

Florida Golf Management, Inc.                      Florida

Wright-Bilt Corp.                                  Delaware

Coyote Holdings, Inc.                              Delaware

Panthers Edgewater Resort, Inc.                    Delaware

Panthers RPN, Ltd.                                 Delaware
STATE v. WILSON.

No. COA07-48.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 7, 2007.

Certification Date August 27, 2007.

Appeal from Gaston (05CRS21702).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3291 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat certain income and 

gains relating to fuels as qualifying income for publicly traded partnerships. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 21 (legislative day, JULY 17), 2008 

Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. LUGAR) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat certain income and gains relating to fuels as qualifying 

income for publicly traded partnerships. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Biofuels Pipeline Act 

5 of 2008’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CERTAIN INCOME AND GAINS RELATING TO FUELS 

7 TREATED AS QUALIFYING INCOME FOR PUB8 LICLY TRADED PARTNERSHIPS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section 

10 7704(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (definVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:15 Jul 22, 2008 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S3291.IS S3291

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 3291 IS

1 ing qualifying income) is amended by inserting ‘‘, or the 

2 transportation, storage, or marketing of any fuel which 

3 meets the registration requirements for fuels and fuel ad4 ditives established by the Environmental Protection Agen5 cy under section 211 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

6 7545)’’ after ‘‘timber)’’. 

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

8 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment 

9 of this Act, in taxable years ending after such date. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
STATE v. Brian VANN.

No. 115P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

LaToya B. Powell, Associate Attorney General, Edward w. Grannis, Jr., District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th day of March 2007 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review":

"Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference this the 27th day of June 2007."
STATE of North Carolina v. Joshua Caine CATE.

No. 299P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 23, 2007.

Joshua Caine Cate, pro se.

Derrick C. Mertz, Assistant Attorney General, Ronald L. Moore, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 28th day of June 2007 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina 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 23rd day of August 2007."
STATE v. TERRY.

No. COA06-393.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed February 6, 2007.

Certification Date February 26, 2007.

Appeal from the Vance (05CRS50457, 05CRS50458).

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. No error.
Opinion issued September 5, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00499-CV

———————————

ROBERT HUNT, Appellant

V.

CHRISTINA HUNT, Appellee

On Appeal from the 280th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-26117

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Robert Hunt, has filed a “Notice of Nonsuit,” in which he states 

that he “does not desire to prosecute this suit against Appellee at this time.” The 

Court construes this notice as a motion to dismiss the appeal. No opinion has 

issued. Further, although appellant failed to include a certificate of conference, 
2

more than 10 days have passed and no party has responded to the notice. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5), 10.3(a). 

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(1). We dismiss all other pending motions as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Massengale.