alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

 

2... The Tarrant County District Clerk’s office has advised this court that it

does not have any record of a pending petition having been filed by Relator.

However, even if the district clerk’s office had received Relator’s pleading and

refused to file it, this court would not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of

mandamus against it. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b) (Vernon 2004).

If, however, a district clerk’s office has refused to accept a pleading tendered

for filing, the tendering party should attempt to file the pleading directly with

the district judge, explaining in a verified motion that the clerk refused to accept

the pleading for filing. See In re Bernard, 993 S.W.2d 453, 454 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, original proceeding)(O’Connor, J., concurring).

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-370-CV

IN RE JAMES EDWARD BELLS RELATOR

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

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is

of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s petition for 2

writ of mandamus is denied.
2

Relator shall pay all costs of this original proceeding, for which let

execution issue.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and MCCOY, JJ.

DELIVERED: October 7, 2008
# C_2006190EN.01002002.xml

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/20

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2006 — Carrs Paper Ltd v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-123/02) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Proceedings for the liquidation of the applicant - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2006/C 190/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Carrs Paper Ltd (Shirley, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Grayston and A. Bywater, Solicitors)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls and A. Whelan, acting as Agents, and by M. van der Woude and V. Landes, lawyers)

Defendant:

Re:

Applicant for annulment, or in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — carbonless paper) (OJ 2004 L 115, p.1)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no need to adjudicate on the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

| 2. | The applicant is to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 169, 13.7.2002.

1

---
Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  1)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-120692),2)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-150737),3)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-94782),4)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-22211),5)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-43267),6)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-39282) ,7)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-65592), and8)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-125571) of Liberty Property Trust and
Liberty Property Limited Partnership,9)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-156460),10)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-148614),11)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-14139),12)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-53297),13)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-63115),14)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-37218),15)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-45032),16)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-63494),17)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-63978),18)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-91702),19)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-107482),20)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-108040),21)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-114609),22)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-118994),23)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-130948),24)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-125572),25)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-122365),26)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-159731),27)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-163572)28)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-141314) pertaining to the Liberty Property
Trust Amended and Restated Share Incentive Plan,29)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-32244) pertaining to the Liberty Property
Trust Amended and Restated Share Incentive Plan,30)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-62504) pertaining to the Liberty Property
Trust Amended and Restated Share Incentive Plan,31)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-62506) pertaining to the Liberty Property
Trust Amended and Restated Share Incentive Plan,32)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-118995) pertaining to the Liberty Property
Trust Amended and Restated Share Incentive Plan, and33)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-159732) pertaining to the Liberty Property
Trust Amended and Restated Share Incentive Plan, and in the related Prospectuses
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T K EI TH M . CA SSELLS, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. D . M E H T A ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 07- 17024 D . C. N o . CV - 0 4 - 0 1 7 9 8 - FCD / EFB ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia F r a nk C . D a m r e l l , J r . , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d M a y25, 2010 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T H O M A S , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. K ei th M . C as se l l s, a C al i forni a s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct c o u rt’s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t in h is 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n a lle g in g d e lib e r a te in d if f e r e n c e to h is s e r io u s m e d ic a l n e e d s in v io latio n o f th e E ig h th A m e n d m e n t. 

# FI LED JU N 14 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS0 7 - 1 7 0 2 4 2 W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , T og uchiv. Chung , 3 9 1 F. 3 d1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 6 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. C a s s e lls c o n te n d s th a t p r is o n o f f ic ia ls im p r o p e r lyd e lay e ds u r g e ryo n h is spi ne, del ay ed po st -s urgi ca l fol l ow -up exam i nat i on s, and d eni ed hi s r equestfor an egg-crat e m attre ss . T he di stri ctcourt , ho w ever , prop er l y grant ed sum m ary ju d g m e n t b e c au s e C a s s e lls f a ile dto r a is e atr iab le is s u e a s to w h e th e rd e f e n d a n ts w e r e d e lib e r a te lyin d if

f e r e n t to h is s p in e c o n d itio n s . Se e i d. a t1057 ( apr i s on offi ci alac t s w i th d el i bera t e i nd i ff er ence on l y i f he “ kn ow s of and di sr egar ds an e xc e s s i ve r i s k t o i nm a t e he a l th a nd s a f e ty , ” a nd “ [ m ] e r e ne gl i ge nc e i n di a gnos i ng o rtr e a tin g am e d ic a l c o n d itio n , w ith o u t m o r e , d o e s n o t v io la te ap r is o n e r ’s E ig h th A m endm entri gh t s” ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and ci t at i on s om i tt ed). T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on byde ny i ng C a s s e l l s ’ s m ot i on f o rle a v e to f

ile a n a m e n d e dc o m p la in t, b e c au s e a m e n d m e n t w o u ldb e f u tile . See G ardne rv . M

ar t i no , 56 3 F . 3d 98 1, 99 0 (9th C i r. 20 09 ) ( “ W e r evi ew the di stri ct court ’ s deni alof l eave t o am end the com pl ai ntfor abu se of di sc re t i on . A di stri ct c ourtdoe s note rri n de ny i ng l e a ve t o a m e nd w he r e the a m e ndm e ntw oul d be fut i l e. ”) (c i t at i on s om i tt ed). C as se l l s’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve. AF F I RME D.
# C_2008064EN.01006302.xml

| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/63 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/63

---

Order of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 27 November 2007 — Microsoft Corporation v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-313/05) (1)

1

(2008/C 64/103)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3771 Engrossed in House (EH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3771

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions 
  for the relief of victims of the Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines.

    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 ``Philippines Charitable Giving 
Assistance Act''.

SEC. 2. ACCELERATION OF INCOME TAX BENEFITS FOR CHARITABLE CASH 
              CONTRIBUTIONS FOR RELIEF OF VICTIMS OF TYPHOON HAIYAN IN 
              THE PHILIPPINES.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of section 170 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986, a taxpayer may treat any contribution described 
in subsection (b) made after the date of the enactment of this Act, and 
before April 15, 2014, as if such contribution was made on December 31, 
2013, and not in 2014.
    (b) Contribution Described.--A contribution is described in this 
subsection if such contribution is a cash contribution made for the 
relief of victims in areas affected by Typhoon Haiyan, for which a 
charitable contribution deduction is allowable under section 170 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
    (c) Recordkeeping.--In the case of a contribution described in 
subsection (b), a telephone bill showing the name of the donee 
organization, the date of the contribution, and the amount of the 
contribution shall be treated as meeting the recordkeeping requirements 
of section 170(f)(17) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 24, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 3771

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions 
  for the relief of victims of the Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines.
```
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 188 (Thursday, September 29, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56941]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19433]


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

PRESIDIO TRUST


Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: The Presidio Trust.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Sec. 103(c)(6) of the Presidio Trust Act, 
16 U.S.C. 460bb note, Title I of Pub. L. 104-333, 110 Stat. 4097, as 
amended, and in accordance with the Presidio Trust's bylaws, notice is 
hereby given that a public meeting of the Presidio Trust Board of 
Directors will be held commencing 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, October 20, 
2005, at the Herbst International Exhibition Hall, 385 Moraga Avenue, 
Presidio of San Francisco, California. The Presidio Trust was created 
by Congress in 1996 to manage approximately eighty percent of the 
former U.S. Army base known as the Presidio, in San Francisco, 
California.
    The purposes of this meeting are to provide an Executive Director's 
Report, to provide an overview of projects and plans for fiscal year 
2006, and to receive public comment in accordance with the Trust's 
Public Outreach Policy.
    Accommodation: Individuals requiring special accommodation at this 
meeting, such as needing a sign language interpreter, should contact 
Mollie Matull at (415) 561-5300 prior to October 14, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Cook, General Counsel, the 
Presidio Trust, 34 Graham Street, P.O. Box 29052, San Francisco, 
California 94129-0052, Telephone: (415) 561-5300.

    Dated: September 23, 2005.
Karen A. Cook,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 05-19433 Filed 9-28-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4R-P
# C_2009141EN.01001102.xml

| 20.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 141/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 141/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 23 April 2009 — AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-425/07 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Competition - Commission rejecting a complaint - Serious impediments to the proper functioning of the common market - Lack of Community interest)

2009/C 141/17

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Appellant: AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE (represented by: T. Asprogerakas Grivas, dikigoros)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and T. Christoforou, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 12 July 2007 in Case T-229/05 AEPI v Commission, by which the Court dismissed as unfounded an action for the annulment of the Commission’s decision of 18 April 2005 to reject the applicant’s complaint concerning an alleged infringement of Articles 81 and/or 82 of the EC Treaty by the related-rights collective management bodies ERATO, APOLLON and GRAMMO which charged radio and television stations unreasonable amounts in respect of the related rights of singers, musicians and producers of music media

AEPI

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal.

| 2. | Orders AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders AEPI Elliniki Etaireia pros Prostasian tis Pnevmatikis Idioktisias AE to pay the costs

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.

1

---
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

CHRISTOPHER BITTOLA AND

DANNA BITTOLA, INDIVIDUALLY

AND ON BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR

CHILD, ALEXANDER BITTOLA

VERSUS

NEKITA HARMON, OLD REPUBLIC

INSURANCE COMPANY, GELCO

CORPORATION AND 3M COMPANY

NO. 2021 CW 1231

JANUARY 21, 2022

In Re: Danna Bittola, individually and on behalf of her minor

child, Alexander Bittola, applying for supervisory

writs, 22nd Judicial District Court, Parish of St. 

Tammany, No. 2018- 10797. 

BEFORE: McCLENDON, WELCH, AND THERIOT, JJ. 

WRIT DENIED. Plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proof

on the motion in limine, as no evidence was formally introduced

at the hearing. Evidence not properly and officially offered

and introduced cannot be considered, even if it is physically

placed in the record. Documents attached to memoranda do not

constitute evidence and cannot be considered as such on appeal. 

Denoux v. Vessel Management Services, Inc., 2007- 2143 ( La. 

5/ 21/ 08), 983 So. 2d 84, 88. 

JEW

Theriot, J., concurs and would deny the writ. 

McClendon, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. An

expert witness may not give expert testimony beyond the scope of

the field of expertise in which he is qualified. State v. 

Williams, 615 So. 2d 1009, 1022 ( La. App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 

619 So. 2d 543 ( La. 1993). Specifically, a biomechanics expert

cannot testify as to whether the collision caused a plaintiff' s

injuries since he is not a medical expert. See Collins v. 

Benton, 18- 7465, 2020 WL 3605942, at * 8 ( E. D. La. July 2, 

2020). However, he can opine on the force of impact experienced

by plaintiffs and how a hypothetical human body usually responds

to such force, both of which may assist the jury in evaluating

whether the collision caused the purported injuries and if so

the extent of damages. Id.; see also Jones v. Bravata, 2018- 

0837 ( La. App. 1st Cir. 5/ 9/ 19), 280 So. 3d 226, writ denied, 

2019- 01850 ( La. 2/ 26/ 20), 294 So. 3d 477. Accordingly, I would

reverse in part the district court' s June 1, 2021 judgment

denying the " Motion in Limine Regarding the Testimony of Wilson

C. Hayes, Ph. D." filed by Plaintiff, Danna Bittola, individually

and on behalf of her minor child, Alexander Bittola, and grant

the motion to exclude Dr. Hayes' s opinion as to medical

causation. I would deny the writ application in all other

respects. 

OURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

9 1*

DEPUT

0 4LEK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER
31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,953,270
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,217,694
<PP&E>                                       8,498,173
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,088,449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,635,997
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,924,149
<BONDS>                                      1,273,920
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        97,286
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,340,642
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,635,997
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,503,230
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             682,135
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,844,378)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,844,378)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,844,378)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     ($.81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   ($.81)


</TABLE>
1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. ___________ No. 96-1809

___________ Calixto Raymond Ledon, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: December 18, 1996 Filed: December 24, 1996

___________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In 1995, Calixto Raymond Ledon pleaded guilty to distributing cocaine. The district court 1 sentenced him to 70 months imprisonment and four years supervised release. Ledon did not file a direct criminal appeal. Ledon filed the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, asserting that his criminal conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause's prohibition against multiple punishments for the same offense, because his property had previously been administratively forfeited pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4) and (a)(6). The district court denied relief, and Ledon appeals. Ledon's claim is foreclosed for the reasons set forth in United States v. Ursery , 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2148-49 (1996) (civil-2- forfeitures under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6) and (7) are neither "punishment" nor criminal for purposes of Double Jeopardy Clause); United States v. One 1970 36.9' Columbia Sailing Boat , 91 F.3d 1053, 1056 (8th Cir. 1996) (Urseryapplies to forfeitures under § 881(a)(4)); and United States v. Kress , 88 F.3d 664, 665-66 (8th Cir. 1996) (Ursery forecloses a double jeopardy claim involving administrative forfeiture). Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.