alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered September 9 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 00912

- CV

IN RE ALLSTATE PROPE RTY AND CASUALTY INS URANCE COMPANY, Relator

O riginal Proceeding fro m the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 16

- 04652



### O RDER Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s August 2, 2019 petition for

writ of mandamus.

/s/ KE N MOLBERG JUSTICE
State of North Carolina v. Tyquan Lee Hines

No. COA16-287

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 1, 2016

NO ERROR IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
# C_2008051EN.01003804.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 Court of 16 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-31/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 51/66)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

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

---

(1)  OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

1

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 39
 
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
  /s/ C. Kevin McArthurC. Kevin McArthurPresident and Chief Executive Officer




---



##### 



1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Lindsay HallLindsay HallExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ETHAN REIMERS,

Appellant,

v.

VANESSA REIMERS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 19

- 00101

- CV

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2018DCM1777 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore dismiss

the appeal. We further order Appellant pay all costs o f this appeal, and this decision be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Pal afox, JJ.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00316

- CR

Kelly Dawn Kunkel

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From County Criminal Court No. 9

o f Tarrant County (1348604 )

October 1, 2015

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

________________ Justice Bonnie Sudderth
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 October 2008 – Adobe v OHIM (FLEX)**

**(Case T-158/06)**

Community trade mark – Application for the Community word mark FLEX – Absolute ground for refusal – Descriptive character – Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Absolute grounds for refusal – Marks composed exclusively of signs or indications which may serve to designate the characteristics of goods (Council Regulation
No 40/94, Art. 7(1)(c)) (see paras 45, 47-48, 56-57)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | ACTION for annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 April 2006 (Case R 1430/2005-2) concerning registration of the Community trade mark FLEX No 3795011. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Adobe Systems Inc. |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark FLEX for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 – Application No 3795011 |
| Decision of the examiner: | Refusal of registration |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal partially dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

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

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Adobe Systems Inc. to pay the costs. |
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 180 (Monday, September 19, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18691]


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

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Federal Register Citations of Previous Announcement: 70 FR 54381, 
September 14, 2005.

Previously Announced Time and Date of Meeting: 2 p.m. (Eastern Time) 
Wednesday, September 21, 2005.

Change in the Meeting: The meeting has been cancelled.

For Further Information Contact: Stephen Llewellyn, Acting Executive 
Officer on (202) 663-4070.

    Dated: September 14, 2005.
Stephen Llewellyn,
Acting Executive Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-18691 Filed 9-15-05; 12:22 pm]
BILLING CODE 6750-06-M
Sammie Ray USHER, Jr., Plaintiff, v. The CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, Defendant.

No. COA15-880.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
Marilyn A. Ebron, Administrator of the Estate of William Arthur Ebron, Deceased Employee, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. American Red Cross, Defendant-Appellee,

Travelers Indemnity Co., Carrier-Appellee.

No. COA15-1166

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 16, 2016

AFFIRMED.
# C_2009032EN.01005002.xml

| 7.2.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/50

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2008 — Reali v Commission

(Case F-136/06) (1)

1

(Staff case - Contract staff - Recruitment - Classification in grade - Experience - Qualifications - Equivalence)

(2009/C 32/98)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Enzo Reali (Florence, Italy) (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and M. Velardo, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Staff case — Annulment of the Appointing Authority's decision of 30 August 2006 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant, a member of the contract staff, requesting to be reclassified from Grade 14 to Grade 16 in Function Group IV, on account of the value to be attributed to his ‘Laurea in Scienze agrarie’ diploma in the calculation of his professional experience.

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007, p. 38.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. James Preston DAVIS, Defendant.

No. 15-222.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 20, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
STATE v. David FELTON.

No. 186P10-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 11th of September <page vol="778" reporter="S.E.2d" no="275" /> 2015 by Defendant to Proceed In Forma Pauperis:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40210

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HERIBERTO CARDENAS-CARDENAS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Heriberto Cardenas-Cardenas appeals the sentence imposed following his

conviction on his guilty plea to a charge of being an alien unlawfully present in

the United States after deportation. He argues that the district court reversibly

erred by imposing a 16-level increase to his base offense level based upon its

determination that his prior Texas conviction for burglary of a habitation

constituted a crime of violence.

As Cardenas-Cardenas acknowledges, a panel ofthis court previously held

that a violation of TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02(a)(1), the statute pertaining to

his prior burglary conviction, is a crime of violence for purposes of § 2L1.2

because it is equivalent to the enumerated offense of burglary of a dwelling. See

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 25, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40210

2

United States v. Garcia-Mendez, 420 F.3d 454, 456-57 (5th Cir. 2005); see also

U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, comment n.1(B)(iii). Nevertheless, Cardenas-Cardenas argues

that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in James v. United States, 127 S. Ct.

1586, 1599-1600 (2007), overrules this circuit’s precedent. We disagree and

determine that this argument is, as Cardenas-Cardenas concedes, foreclosed.

In James, the Supreme Court noted in dicta that because the Florida

burglary statute at issue in that case criminalized the mere unlawful entry onto

the curtilage of a structure, rather than entry into the structure itself, the

statute contemplates conduct beyond generic burglary. Id. at 1599. This,

however, was not the holding of James, which did not present the issue whether

burglary in Florida constitutes an enumerated offense that could be used to

impose a guidelines sentencing adjustment under 2L1.2. Rather, James raised

the question whether a Florida burglary conviction was a violent felony for

purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Id. at 1590; see

also United States v. Gomez-Guerra, 485 F.3d 301, 303 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,

128 S. Ct. 156 (2007). 

Cardenas-Cardenas’s argumentis unavailing even under the James dicta.

In contrast to Florida’s burglary statute, “habitation” under § 30.02(a)(1) does

notinclude the curtilage surrounding the habitable structure. See §30.01(1); St.

Julian v. State, 874 S.W.2d 669, 671 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). Consequently,

James does not undermine our conclusions in Garcia-Mendez that a violation of

§ 30.02(a)(1) constitutes “burglary of a dwelling” as that phrase is generically

used and, concomitantly, that a conviction under that statute will support a

sentencing adjustment under § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii). 

Cardenas-Cardenas has shown no error in connection with his sentence.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-4070

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RONALD LEE HAMBY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(1:07-cr-00241-WDQ-1)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 18, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Sherri Keene, Staff Attorney,

Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United

States Attorney, Gregory Welsh, Assistant United States Attorney,

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Ronald Lee Hamby pled guilty pursuant to a written plea

agreement to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000). Hamby was sentenced to 180 months’

imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.

On appeal, Hamby contends that his classification as an

armed career criminal violated the Sixth Amendment because it was

based on prior convictions that were not charged in the indictment

and found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, nor admitted. After

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), sentencing courts are

still required to calculate the applicable advisory guideline range

based on appropriate findings of fact. United States v. Moreland,

437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir. 2006). We have previously noted that

sentencing factors should continue to be evaluated based on the

preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Morris, 429 F.3d

65, 72 (4th Cir. 2005). Moreover, in United States v. Cheek, 415

F.3d 349, 352-54 (4th Cir. 2005), we specifically determined that

prior convictions used as a basis for enhancement under the Armed

Career Criminal Act need not be charged in the indictment nor

proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The district court followed the necessary procedural

steps in sentencing Hamby, appropriately treating the Sentencing

Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the

applicable Guidelines range, and weighing the relevant 18 U.S.C.
3

§ 3553(a) (2000) factors. See United States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d

366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006). Furthermore, Hamby’s 180-month sentence,

which is the lowest end of the applicable Guidelines range and the

statutory minimum, may be presumed reasonable. See United

States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). Thus, we

conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in

imposing the chosen sentence. See Gall v. United States, 128 S.

Ct. 586, 597 (2007).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court. 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136081 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136081 

 COA: 279366 

Branch CC: 01-087368-FC 

STANLEY MOTHENE MILLER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 8, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0915 

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 22, 2008 

 Clerk
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Cedric Charles Clay, Appellant

No. 06

- 11

- 00229

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 5th District Court of Cass County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2010F00089 ). Opinion delivered by Justice Carter, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Cedric Charles Clay, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DECEMBE R 28, 2012 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Applicant pleaded guilty to criminal solicitation of a minor pursuant to a plea bargain 1

and was placed on deferred adjudication probation for six years. The judgment adjudicating guilt

dated April 16, 2008, says, however, that he was convicted of criminal solicitation of a minor as

well as attempted sexual assault and unlawful restraint. Based on the record and the State’s

response in the present application, these other charges were abandoned pursuant to the plea

bargain. 

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-75,998

EX PARTE ERIC LAMOND BAYLESS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 35,038-A IN THE 188 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM GREGG COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of criminal

solicitation of a minor and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. The Sixth Court of Appeals 1
2

dismissed his appeal. Bayless v. State, No. 06-07-00086-CR (Tex. App.–Texarkana, February 20,

2008, no pet.). 

Applicant contends that his plea was rendered involuntary because he was not properly

admonished as to the punishment range for criminal solicitation of a minor. The trial court

recommended that we grant relief. Accordingly, relief is granted. The judgment in Cause No. 35,038-

A in the 188 Judicial District Court of Gregg County is set aside, and Applicant is remanded to the th

custody of the Sheriff of Gregg County to answer the charges against him.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Delivered: September 10, 2008

Do Not Publish
In re: R.K.C., J.O.C., Minor Juveniles.

No. COA16-354

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Jacqueline Marie DIXON.

No. COA15-318.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Oct. 20, 2015.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the amended Annual Report of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Company) on Form 40-F/A for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John A. Clarke, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1.

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.

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



/@/ John A. Clarke

John A. Clarke

President and Chief Executive Officer



January 16, 2008
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk June 28, 2011

y0620 

# Order

June 28, 2011

142635

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 142635 COA: 300557 Ingham CC: 09-000215-FC TYRON BERNARD DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 3, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3744 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3744

 To provide for the compensation of Federal employees furloughed as a 
                        result of sequestration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 12, 2013

  Mr. Kilmer (for himself, Mr. Moran, and Mr. Wittman) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
                           Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the compensation of Federal employees furloughed as a 
                        result of sequestration.

    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 ``Federal Employee Pay Restoration 
Act''.

SEC. 2. COMPENSATION FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FURLOUGHED AS A RESULT OF 
              SEQUESTRATION.

    Federal employees furloughed as a result of reductions in budget 
authority required pursuant to the Presidential sequestration order 
dated March 1, 2013, shall be compensated at their standard rate of 
compensation for the period of such furlough.
                                 <all>
```
CITY OF ASHEVILLE v. STATE of North Carolina, et al.

No. 391PA15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 29, 2016.

I. Faison Hicks, Special Deputy Attorney General.

Robert W. Oast, Jr., City Attorney, for City of Asheville.

Daniel G. Clodfelter, Charlotte, for City of Asheville.

T. Randolph Perkins, Charlotte, for City of Asheville.

Jonathan M. Watkins, Charlotte.

Jason G. Idilbi, Charlotte.

Robert B. Long, Jr., Asheville, for City of Asheville.

Ronald K. Payne, Asheville.

Isham F. Hicks, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Robin T. Currin, City of Ashville Attorney, for City of Asheville.

William Clarke, Asheville, for Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County.

Stephen W. Petersen, Raleigh, for Metropolitan Sewerage District of Buncombe County.

Robert F. Orr, Asheville, for City of Asheville.

Matthew W. Sawchak, Raleigh, for City of Asheville.

Allegra Collins, for International Municipal Lawyers Association.

Edward J. Coyne, III, Greenville, for Brunswick Regional Water & Sewer H2GO.

Jeremy M. Wilson, Wilmington, for Brunswick Regional Water & Sewer H2GO.

Gabriel Du Sablon, for City of Wilson.

James P. Cauley, III, Wilson, for City of Wilson.

Gregory F. Schwitzgebel, III, Associate General Counsel, for North Carolina League of Municipalities.

Kimberly S. Hibbard, General Counsel, for North Carolina League of Municipalities.

Paul M. Cox, Raleigh, for City Of Asheville.

Emily Erixson, Raleigh, for City of Asheville.

Alexandra Davis, for International Municipal Lawyers Association.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 29th of March 2016 by State of NC:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th of March 2016."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 15th of April 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
Mayra A. MEJIA, Plaintiff, v. Louis D. BOWMAN, Individually and as a member of the High Point, North Carolina, Police Department; and J.A. Jamerson and C.D. Loggins, Individually and as members of the Guilford County Sheriff's Department; B.J. Barnes, Sheriff of Guilford County; and The Local Government Excess Liability Fund, Inc., Defendants.

No. COA15-777.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Reversed.