alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-389-CV

IN THE MATTER OF K.M.		

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

	FROM THE 323RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	Appellant K.M. was adjudicated delinquent on October 1, 2007 for misdemeanor assault-bodily injury.  He appealed from this judgment of delinquency.  According to Appellant’s brief, Appellant’s disposition was deferred until December 2007, when he was placed on probation for one year.  Appellant has not appealed from the disposition order, and neither the disposition order nor a record of the final disposition proceedings, if any, appears in the record on appeal.

	Appellant’s court-appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion.  In the brief, counsel avers that, in his professional opinion, this appeal is frivolous.2  Counsel’s brief and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California3 by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no reversible grounds on appeal and referencing any grounds that might arguably support the appeal.4  This court provided Appellant and his mother the opportunity to file a pro se brief, but they have not done so.  The State also did not file a brief. 	In our duties as a reviewing court, we must conduct an independent evaluation of the record to determine whether counsel is correct in determining that the appeal is frivolous.5  Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.6

	Our review of the record reveals no jurisdictional defects.  The juvenile court has jurisdiction over a child who is alleged to have engaged in delinquent conduct.7  Appellant and his trial counsel stipulated that Appellant was fifteen years old at the time of trial.8  Appellant and his trial counsel also stipulated that he resides in Tarrant County.

	Our review of the record also shows that the petition to adjudicate is not defective and that it provided sufficient notice to Appellant.9  Service in this case was also proper.10

	Appellant’s mother attended the hearing.11  Appellant was represented by counsel from the date of the detention hearing through the date of the judgment of delinquency and also has counsel on appeal.12  Additionally, Appellant’s waivers of his rights comport with section 51.09 of the family code.13

	The evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support adjudication.14  Further, based on the record, Appellant would be unable to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that but for his trial counsel’s errors, the result of the trial would have been different.15

	Because our independent review of the record reveals no reversible error, we agree with counsel’s professional determination that an appeal challenging adjudication would be frivolous.  Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw in this case and affirm the trial court’s judgment of delinquency.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  DAUPHINOT, J; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DELIVERED:  October 2, 2008
# C_2011038EN.01000901.xml

| 5.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/9

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2010 — Netherlands v Commission

(Joined Cases T-231/06 and T-237/06) (1)

1

(State aid - Public service broadcasting - Measures taken by the Netherlands authorities - Decision declaring State aid compatible in part and incompatible in part with the common market - New aid or existing aid - Concept of State aid - Concept of undertaking - Overcompensation for the costs of the public service mission - Proportionality - Duty to give reasons - Rights of the defence)

2011/C 38/11

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H. Sevenster and M. de Grave, Agents) (Case T-231/06); and Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) (Hilversum, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Feenstra and H. Speyart van Woerden, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and H. van Vliet, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Applications for the annulment of Commission Decision 2008/136/EC of 22 June 2006 on the ad hoc financing of Dutch public service broadcasters C 2/2004 (ex NN 170/2003) (OJ 2008 L 49, p. 1)

ad hoc

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

dismisses the actions;

| 2. | orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs in Case T-231/06; |
| --- | --- |

2.

orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs in Case T-231/06;

| 3. | orders Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) to pay the costs in Case T-237/06. |
| --- | --- |

3.

orders Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (NOS) to pay the costs in Case T-237/06.

---

(1)  OJ C 261, of 28.10.2006.

1

---
Julian Murray v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

No. 124A16

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Ms. Laura H. McHenry, Assistant Attorney General, Ms. Kimberly D. Potter, Special Deputy Attorney General, For University of North Carolina At Chapel Hill

Mr. Henry Clay Turner, Attorney at Law, For Murray, Jillian

**ORDER**

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Defendant on the 5th of April 2016 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).

*23WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 10th day of June 2016.
Order entered December 4, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00812
- CR
KENNETH LIONELLE WIL LIAMSON, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F17
- 75495
- H



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s December 2, 2019 second motion to extend the time to file appellant’s brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief f iled on or before December 31, 2019. If appellant’s brief is not filed by December 31, 2019, this appeal may be abated for the trial court to make findings in accordance with rule of appellate procedure 38.8.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

___________________________________________

F.L., Appellant 

and 

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Parkridge, IL, Employer 

___________________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0792 

Issued: September 15, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

On February 23, 2015 appellant filed an application for review of a January 12, 2015 

nonmerit decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP) which denied his 

request for reconsideration. The Board docketed the appeal as No. 15-792. 

The Board, having reviewed the case record submitted by OWCP, notes that the record is 

incomplete. In this case, on October 11, 2014 appellant requested reconsideration of an 

October 1, 2014 OWCP schedule award decision. In its January 12, 2015 decision, OWCP 

denied his request for reconsideration of a September 30, 2014 OWCP decision. The Board 

notes that the record contains a schedule award decision dated September 30, 2014 which 

pertains to another claimant. The record does not contain a complete October 1, 2014 OWCP 

decision from which appellant requested reconsideration.1

 

As the record before the Board is incomplete and would not permit an informed 

adjudication of the case by the Board, the Board concludes that the case is not in posture for a 

 1

 The record does contain a September 30, 2014 payment worksheet for a schedule award indicating that OWCP 

was to issue appellant a schedule award for two percent impairment of the right leg. The record also contains the 

appeal request form from an October 1, 2014 decision on which appellant requested reconsideration. No other part 

of an October 1, 2014 decision is in the record before the Board. 
2

decision and must be remanded to OWCP for reconstruction and proper assemblage of the case 

record, to be followed by an appropriate decision on appellant’s request for reconsideration. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the January 12, 2015 decision of the Office of 

Workers’ Compensation Programs is set aside. The case recorded is remanded to OWCP for 

further proceedings consistent with this order of the Board. 

Issued: September 15, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
STATE of North Carolina v. Harley Latt EDWARDS, Jr.

No. COA15-1336.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Vacated and Remanded.
Boger v. McCrory, et al.

158P06-7

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 2016

Mr. Derrick D. Boger, Pro Se

Ms. Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, For McCrory, Patrick (Governor), et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of March 2016 by Plaintiff for Tort Claim Civil Complaint:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of June 2016."
* 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. 07-30508

Conference Calendar

THOMAS LANDRY

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LYNN COOPER

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:06-CV-2344

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Thomas Landry, Louisiana prisoner # 327969, appeals the district court’s

dismissal, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii), of his in forma pauperis

(IFP) complaint seeking damages for injuries he received in an attack by another

inmate. Landry asserts that his injuries were the result of inadequate

supervision and Warden Lynn Cooper’s negligence. Landry’s arguments are not

supported by citation to the record or relevant legal authority. See Yohey v.

Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, he has wholly failed to

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 21, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-30508

2

show that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint was error as his claims

sound in negligence and seek to hold Warden Cooper liable for his employees’

actions. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991); Williams

v. Luna, 909 F.2d 121, 123 (5th Cir. 1990). 

The appeal is without arguable merit and, thus, frivolous. See Howard v.

King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is

dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Landry’s

complaint and this court’s dismissal of his appeal both count as strikes for

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

Cir. 1996). Landry is warned that if he accumulates three strikes, he will no

longer be allowed to 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. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19376]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 05-145]


Notice of Prospective Patent License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of prospective patent license.

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

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice that United Aerospace, Inc., of New 
York, New York, has applied for an exclusive license to practice the 
invention disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 6,186,693 entitled PASSIVE 
CAPTURE JOINT WITH THREE DEGREES OF FREEDOM and assigned to the United 
States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to the 
prospective grant of a license should be sent to Mr. Jerry L. Seemann, 
Chief Patent Counsel/LS01, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 
35812. NASA has not yet made a determination to grant the requested 
license and may deny the requested license even if no objections are 
submitted within the comment period.

DATES: Responses to this notice must be received by October 13, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sammy A. Nabors, Technology Transfer 
Department/ED03, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812, 
(256) 544-5226.

    Dated: September 16, 2005.
Keith T. Sefton,
Deputy General Counsel (Admin & Mgmt).
[FR Doc. 05-19376 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 135883 Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 135883 

 COA: 273921 

Wayne CC: 06-004392-01

GERALD O’CONNOR GRATTON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

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

judgment 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. 

d1020 

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. 

October 27, 2008 

 Clerk
State of North Carolina v. Dominique Jevon Perry

No. 81A14

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 28, 2016.

Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Perry, Dominique Jevon.

Staples Hughes, Durham.

Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, J. Douglas Henderson, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

*ORDER*

The Court, on its own motion, orders that the parties submit supplemental briefs on the effect of *Montgomery v. Louisiana* , No. 14-280, 2016 WL 280758 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2016, revised Jan. 27, 2016), on the proceedings in this case. Defendant's supplemental brief shall be filed no later than thirty days after the date of this order, and the State's supplemental brief shall be filed no later than thirty days following defendant's filing.

By order of the Court in Conference, this 28thday of January, 2016.
# C_2009282EN.01006202.xml

| 21.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/62 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/62

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 5 October 2009 — Commission v CAE Consulting Sven Rau

(Case T-474/07) (1)

1

2009/C 282/116

Language of the case: German

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 79, 29.3.2008.

1

---
Fisher, et al v. Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation

374A14-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 20, 2016.

Mr. Donald H. Tucker, Jr., Hon. K. Edward Greene, Mr. Tobias S. Hampson, Mr. Derek L. Shaffer, Mr. Jon Corey, Mr. John B. Quinn, Attorneys at Law, For Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation (n/k/a United States Tobacco Cooperative, Inc.).

Mr. Jackson Wyatt Moore, Jr., Mr. J. Mitchell Armbruster, Mr. A.G. Solomons, III, Mr. Paul J. Ekster, Mr. Terrry E. Richardson, Jr., Mr. Lee M. Whitman, Quinn Emanuel, Attorneys at Law.

Mr. Philip R. Isley, Mr. Lonnie B. Williams, Mr. William Robert Cherry, Jr., Mr. C. Alan Runyan, Mr. Dennis T. Worley, Mr. James L. Ward, Jr., Mr. Charles H. Williams, Attorneys at Law, For Fisher, Kaye W. et al.

Mr. John R. Wester, Attorney at Law, For North Carolina Chamber.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 22nd of April 2015 by *527Defendant for Leave to Respond to Memorandum of Additional Authority:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of December 2016."
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the amended Quarterly Report of Triangle Petroleum Corporation
      (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending October 31, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Shaun Toker, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
      to my
      knowledge 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 result of operations of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Triangle Petroleum Corporation and will be retained by Triangle Petroleum
      Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.




/s/
      Shaun
      Toker


Shaun
      Toker


Chief
      Financial Officer


April
      30,
      2008
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-40024 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. CARLOS CECILIO DE LA CRUZ-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:11-CR-1244-1
Before SMITH, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Carlos Cecilio De La Cruz-Martinez h a s moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). De La Cru z - M a r t i n e z has not filed a response. We h ave reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolo u s i s sue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D August 21, 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-40024 Document: 00511964044 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/21/2012No. 12-40024

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-40024 Document: 00511964044 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/21/2012
Town of Beech Mountain v. Genesis Wildlife Sanctuary, Inc.

230A16-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 18, 2016

Patrick H. Flanagan, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, Meagan I. Kiser, Attorney at Law, Stacy C. Eggers, IV, Attorney at Law, Boone, Jaye E. Bingham-Hinch, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Town of Beech Mountain.

Charles E. Clement, Attorney at Law, Boone, John J. Korzen, Attorney at Law, for Genesis Wildlife Sanctuary, Inc.

Charles A. Brady, III, Attorney at Law, Boone.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 18th of August 2016 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 18th of August 2016."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 12th day of October 2016 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

W.G., Appellant 

and 

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 

WIDOWS CREEK FOSSIL PLANT, 

Stevenson, AL, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-0416 

Issued: July 13, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

On December 15, 2014 appellant filed an application for review of an October 31, 2014 

decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), claim number xxxxxx709, 

which denied his claim. The appeal was docketed as No. 15-416. 

In the October 31, 2014 decision, OWCP denied appellant’s claim noting that he had not 

established that his hearing loss was causally related to his employment. The record reflects that 

appellant was granted a prior schedule award for four percent bilateral hearing loss in 2002 while 

performing his employment duties as a conveyor car dump operator, in claim number 

xxxxxx181. The record before the Board contains certain documents from claim number 

xxxxxx181, however, the complete record for claim number xxxxxx181 is not before the Board. 

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that the case is not in posture for a 

decision. There is medical and factual evidence that are germane to the issues pending on appeal 

before the Board in claim number xxxxx709. OWCP procedures provide for combining files in 

claims pertaining to the same area of the body and where correct adjudication depends on crossreferencing between files.1

 In the instant appeal, for a full and fair adjudication, the OWCP 

 1

 Federal (FECA) Procedure Manual, Part 2 -- File Maintenance and Management, Doubling Case Files, Chapter 

2.4000.8(c) (February 2000). 
2

claims pertaining to appellant’s hearing loss should be combined. This will allow the Board to 

consider all relevant evidence in deciding appellant’s claim. 

The case will be remanded to OWCP to combine case files for claim numbers xxxxxx709 

and xxxxxx181. Following this and such other development as deemed necessary, OWCP shall 

issue an appropriate merit decision on appellant’s claim. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the October 31, 2014 decision be set aside and the 

matter remanded to OWCP for further proceedings consistent with this order. 

Issued: July 13, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board