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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-07-00764-CR

Roy VILLEGAS,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CR-7197

Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Catherine Stone, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 10, 2008

AFFIRMED

A jury found Roy Villegas guilty of possession of a controlled substance, heroin, in an

amount of at least one gram but less than four grams. The trial court sentenced Villegas as a

habitual offender to fifty years of confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Institutional Division. We affirm.
04-07-00764-CR

-2-

Villegas’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief containing a professional

evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable grounds to be advanced.

Counsel concludes that the appeal is without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to Villegas, who was advised of his right to examine

the record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. After reviewing the record, we

agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is therefore

affirmed. Furthermore, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83,

86 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

Catherine Stone, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136156 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

Justices 

v SC: 136156 

 COA: 279937 

Oakland CC: 1998-161463-FC 

PERSCELL DOYLE DAVID,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 10, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s0828 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 9, 2008 

 Clerk
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Respondent

v.

MIRIAM PRYOR,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 356 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of October, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
EXHIBIT 99.2


                       RECKSON OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.
                                  EXHIBIT 99.2
              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63
                      OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


I, Scott H. Rechler, Co-Chief Executive Officer of Reckson Associates Realty
Corp., the sole general partner of Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P. (the
"Company"), certify pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

         1)       The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of the Company for the
                  quarterly period ended September 30, 2002 (the "Report") fully
                  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
                  and

         2)       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.

Dated:  December 16, 2002


                               Reckson Operating Partnership, L.P.
                                 By: Reckson Associates Realty Corp.,
                                     its sole general partner



                                 By /s/ Scott H. Rechler
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Scott H. Rechler, Co-Chief Executive Officer
The KIMBERLEY RICE KAESTNER 1992 FAMILY TRUST v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE.

No. 307P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 24, 2015.

Peggy S. Vincent, Assistant Attorney General, for North Carolina Department of Revenue.

*62Thomas D. Myrick, Charlotte, for The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust.

Neil T. Bloomfield, Charlotte, for The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust.

Kara N. Bitar, Charlotte, for The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust.

Tenisha S. Jacobs, Assistant Attorney General, for North Carolina Department of Revenue.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 26th of August 2015 in this matter for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 prior to a determination by 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 24th of September 2015."
# CE2004078EN.01016201.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/162 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/162

---

(2004/C 78 E/0166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2755/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(15 September 2003)

Subject:   Requirement for nationality to be listed on driving licences

Subject:

A member of my constituency in the south-west of England has just received his new driving licence which states his place of birth, Ireland. He is concerned about this, having suffered discrimination because of his nationality throughout life, particularly in the 1970s when many people from Ireland living in England were victims of prejudice both at work and in many other aspects of their daily lives.

As a result of this, although proud of his Irish heritage, he would rather be identified as a citizen of the EU on his licence, to avoid further possible discrimination. What provisions does the Commission have to protect citizens of the EU who have suffered in this way? Are there any plans to amend the regulations concerning driving licences?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 October 2003)

(27 October 2003)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991, on driving licences (1) foresees that the date and place of birth of the holder are mentioned on the driving licence. These entries are necessary in order to allow a precise identification of the holder by the public authorities, notably for enforcement purposes. The Commission does not intend to propose a modification of this provision.

1

---

(1)  OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

1

---
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.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This document is published to identify institutions of higher education that are ineligible for contracts and grants by reason of a determination by the Secretary of Defense that the institution prohibits or in effect prevents military recruiter access to the campus, students on campus or student directory information. It also implements the requirements set forth in section 983 of title 10, United States Code, and 32 CFR Part 216. The institution of higher education so identified is:

New York Law School, New York, New York

# ADDRESSES:

Director for Accession Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 4000 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Commander Ronda Syring, (703) 695-5529.

Dated: September 8, 2005.

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 05-18178  Filed 9-13-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
STATE v. Albert Lee STEVENSON, Jr.

No. 50P00-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 11, 2015.

Joseph L. Hyde, Assistant Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Albert Lee Stevenson, Jr., Nashville, for Stevenson, Albert Lee Jr.

Brandy Cook, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of December 2015 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of December 2015."
STATE of North Carolina v. Antonio HOLT.

No. 88P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 9, 2008.

Antonio Holt, Pro Se.

Sonya M. Calloway-Durham, Assistant Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 18th day of February 2008 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 9th day of October 2008."
# CE2004070EN.01014801.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/148 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/148

---

(2004/C 70 E/153)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2860/03

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council

(26 September 2003)

Subject:   Article III-302 of the draft Constitution for the European Union

Subject:

Article III-302, paragraphs 4 and 5 state that:

| 4. | If the Council of Ministers approves the European Parliament's position, the proposed act shall be adopted. |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the Council of Ministers approves the European Parliament's position, the proposed act shall be adopted.

| 5. | If the Council of Ministers does not approve the European Parliament's position, it shall adopt its position at first reading and communicate it to the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the Council of Ministers does not approve the European Parliament's position, it shall adopt its position at first reading and communicate it to the European Parliament.

Article 251, paragraph 2 of the EC Treaty (which is replaced by Article III-302, paragraphs 4 and 5) states that ‘The Council, acting by a qualified majority after obtaining the opinion of the European Parliament...’ It would appear, therefore, that the procedure is being changed from qualified majority to simple majority at the Council's first reading.

This interpretation is underpinned by Article III-302, paragraph 8, which states that ‘If, within three months of receiving the European Parliament's amendments, the Council of Ministers, acting by a qualified majority...’, i.e. an explicit reference to qualified majority.

In the light of the above, will the Council say by which majority it acts under Article III-302, paragraphs 4 and 5, and in which article(s) that procedure is laid down?

Reply

(8 December 2003)

(8 December 2003)

The Council has not taken any view on any specific provisions in the draft Constitutional treaty drawn up by the Convention. This draft is on the table of the current Inter-Governmental Conference.

---
The State /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 31, 2015

No. 04-15-00223-CR

Carlos FAZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR10674

The Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the brief is GRANTED. The 

appellant’s brief will be due 30 days after the last portion of the reporter’s record is filed.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 31st day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# C_2008051EN.01003801.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/38

---

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 11 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Centre de traduction des organes de l'Union européenne

(Case C-269/06) (1)

1

(2008/C 51/63)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.

1

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 24

- 00003

- CV

LAKEWOOD CAPITAL GROUP LLC and Kerrville Acquisitions LLC,

Appellants

v.

COMMISSIONERS ’ COURT OF KERR COUNTY, TEXAS and Kerr County Judge Rob

Kelly,

Appellees

From the 198th Judicial District Court

, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 23444B

Honorable Stephen B. Ables , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios Justice

Beth Watkins , Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 7, 2024

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED

On January 12, 2024, Appellants Lakewood Capital Group, LLC and Kerrville

Acquisitions, LLC filed an unopposed motion t o dism iss this appeal. We grant the motion. See

T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)( 1 ).

PER CURIAM
George O. FREEMAN v. Butch JACKSON; Superintendent of Nash Correctional Facility of N.C. Dept. of Corr.

No. 475P07-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 29, 2009.

George O. Freeman, Pro Se.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Plaintiff on the 1st day of December 2008 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of January 2009."
# C_2010317EN.01005003.xml

| 20.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 317/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 317/50

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010 — Avendano and Others v Commission

(Case F-45/06) (1)

1

()

2010/C 317/92

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006, p. 39.

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-17-00428-CV

Javier MORA,

Appellant

v.

Anna MORA,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2001CI00776

Honorable Peter A. Sakai, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appellee Anna Mora recover her costs of this appeal from 

appellant Javier Mora.

SIGNED October 10, 2018.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
#### James Young, Respondent, et al., Plaintiff, v Tim Baker, Individually and Doing Business as Baker and Associates, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[799 NYS2d 913]

In a consolidated action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, the defendant Tim Baker, individually and doing business as Baker and Associates, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (McGuirk, J.), dated April 5, 2004, which granted that branch of the motion of the plaintiff James Young which was to quash a subpoena duces tecum dated February 12, 2004, directing the Family Court of Orange County to produce all documents related to proceedings involving him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff James Young alleges, inter alia, that in February 2002, the defendant Tim Baker, individually and doing business as Baker and Associates (hereinafter Baker), wrongfully came into possession of $550,000, from a safe deposit box rented by his wife, the plaintiff Nancy Young, and himself. Baker alleges that there was only $364,750 in the safe deposit box. To prove that no more than $364,750 was in the safe deposit box, Baker sought the production of records of proceedings from the Family Court of Orange County involving the plaintiff James Young. In the early 1990’s, James Young was involved in a child support litigation before the Orange County Family Court.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in quashing Baker’s overly-broad subpoena which directed the Orange County Family Court to produce all records of proceed*551ings involving the plaintiff James Young. Baker failed to show that the records of the child support proceeding involving James Young approximately 10 years earlier were “material and necessary” to the defense of the action against him *(see*CPLR 3101 [a]; *Allen v Crowell-Collier Publ. Co.,*21 NY2d 403 [1968]; *Vyas v Campbell,*4 AD3d 417 [2004]).

In view of the foregoing, we do not reach James Young’s remaining contention. S. Miller, J.P., Luciano, Crane and Lifson, JJ., concur.
# Leasehold Reform (Amendment) Act 2014 (repealed)

        - Previous
        - Next

E+W

# Leasehold Reform (Amendment) Act 2014

# 2014 CHAPTER 10

An Act to amend the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 in relation to the permitted signatories of notices;                        and for connected purposes.                     

[13th March 2014]

Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons,                           in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—                        

## 1Amendment of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993E+W

In section 99(5)(a) of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (requirement for notice under section                     13 or 42 of that Act to be signed by tenants or tenant personally) after “42” insert “ in respect of premises in Wales ”.                  

## 2Short title, commencement and extentE+W

(1)This Act may be cited as the Leasehold Reform (Amendment) Act 2014.                  

(2)This Act comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed.                  

(3)This Act extends to England and Wales only.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-31055

Conference Calendar

RUSSELL HEWITT

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ROBERT HENDERSON; NATHAN CAIN; JOLENE CONSTANCE; ROBERT

COLQUETTE; LINDA RAMSAY

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:07-CV-839

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Russell Hewitt, Louisiana prisoner # 331926, has filed a motion for leave

to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. The district court dismissed

Hewitt’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim because he did

not demonstrate that the prison regulations that he challenged impinged

unreasonably on his right to exercise his religion. The district court denied

Hewitt’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and certified that the appeal

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-31055

2

was not taken in good faith. By moving for leave to proceed IFP on appeal,

Hewitt is challenging the district court’s certification. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117

F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Hewitt does not address the district court’s reasons for dismissing his

§ 1983 complaint. Failure to identify any error in the district court’s analysis is

the same as if the appellant had not appealed the judgment. Brinkmann v.

Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Although pro se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must brief

arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th

Cir. 1993). Accordingly, in light of his failure to challenge the reasons for the

district court’s certification decision, Hewitt’s claims are deemed abandoned. See

Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748.

Hewitt has not shown that the district court’s certification that an appeal

would not be taken in good faith was incorrect. The instant appeal is without

arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20

(5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Hewitt’s request for IFP is denied, and his appeal

is dismissed. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202, n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Hewitt is

cautioned that the dismissal of his § 1983 suit by the district court pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and our dismissal ofthis appeal as frivolous both count

as strikes under § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th

Cir. 1996). Hewitt is also cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under

§ 1915(g), he may not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he “is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury.” § 1915(g).

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING

ISSUED.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN AND FOR KENT COUNTY

STATE HUMAN RELATIONS :

COMMISSION ex rel. BRENDA GREEN,: C.A. No: K13C-01-006 RBY

:

Plaintiff, :

:

v. :

: 

MARY FIELD and DELAWARE :

COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, :

:

Defendants. :

Submitted: November 19, 2014

Decided: January 15, 2015

Upon Consideration of Plaintiff’s

Motion in Limine 

DENIED

ORDER

Oliver J. Cleary, Esquire, Department of Justice, Wilmington, Delaware for Plaintiff.

Michael P. Morton, Esquire, Greenville, Delaware for Defendants. 

Young, J.
State Human Rel. Comm. ex. rel. Dr. Brenda Green v. Mary Field, et. al.

C.A. No.: K13C-01-006 RBY

January 15, 2015

2

DECISION 

The facts and arguments presented in this Motion are identical to those

presented in the Motion of Plaintiff Butler. Accordingly, this Motion is DENIED

for the same reasons as stated in that Order made this same date and time. 

SO ORDERED this 15th day of January, 2015.

 /s/ Robert B. Young 

 J.

RBY/lmc

oc: Prothonotary

cc: Counsel 

Opinion Distribution

File