alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 12

- 00132

- CV IN THE INTEREST OF M.J.L. , a Child From the 38th Judicial District Court , Uvalde County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011

- 02

- 27955

- CV The Honorable Cathy O. Morris , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Rebecca S immons , Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 3, 2012 MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED; AFFIRMED Appellant M.V. 1 appeals the trial court’s order terminating her parent

- child relationship with her daughter M.J.L. Appellant’s court

- appointed appellate attorney filed a motion to withdraw and a brief containing a professional evaluation of the record dem onstrating there are no arguable grounds to be advanced and concluding the appeal is frivolous. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R. , No. 04

- 03

- 00096

- CV, 2003 WL 21157944, *4 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio May 21, 2003, order) (applying Anders procedure to appeals from orders terminating parental rights), disp. on merits , 2003 WL 22080522 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Sept. 10, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). Appellant was

1 To protect the identity of the minor child, we refer to the mother and child by their initials. See T EX
. F AM
. C ODE A NN
. § 109.002(d) (West 2011); T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 9.8.04

- 12

- 00132

- CV

- 2

- provided a copy of the brief and i nformed of her right to review the record and file her own brief.
See Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85

– 86 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio, July 23, 1997, no pet.); In
re R.R. , 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. In response, appellant filed a pro se letter brief, which
p rimarily complains about her inability to file a full brief on the merits due to her “rudimentary command” of the English language. She also generally asserts her desire to be reunited with her daughter once she is released from incarceration. When an A nders brief and a subsequent pro se brief are filed , the court has two options

. In re Guardianship of Hahn , 276 S.W.3d 515, 518 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2008, no pet.). Upon reviewing the entire record, we may determine : (1) the appeal is without merit and issue an opinion explaining that there is no reversible error , or (2) there are arguable grounds for appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for appointment of new appellate counsel. Id. ; see Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826

– 27 (Tex. Crim. Ap p. 2005) (holding that court of appeals may address merits of issues raised by pro se only after any arguable grounds have been briefed by new counsel). Here, we have carefully reviewed the entire appellate record, and with great deference to appellant’s language skills, we conclude there are no arguable grounds for appeal, there is no reversible error, and the appeal is without merit. See id. Specifically, we hold there are no meritorious issues that might be raised, even if appellant were provided an i nterpreter on appeal . Accordingly, we grant the motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s order.
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
# C_2009113EN.01003501.xml

| 16.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/35

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — Kaul v OHIM — Bayer (ARCOL)

(Case T-402/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ARCOL - Earlier Community word mark CAPOL - Implementation by OHIM of a judgment annulling a decision of one of its Boards of Appeal - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Rights of the defence - Article 8(1)(b), Article 61(2), Article 63(6), Article 73, second sentence, and Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

2009/C 113/71

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kaul GmbH (Elmshorn, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bayer AG (Leverkusen, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 August 2007 (Case R 782/2000-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Kaul GmbH and Bayer AG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kaul GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kaul GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.

1

---
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT JUN C UI, AKA Jun C u i R iih, AKA Jun C ui Se m e n, Pe t i tione r, v. JEFFER SON B . SESSIONS III, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 15-72905 Age n c y No. A203-217-433 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d April 11, 2017 ** B e fore : GOULD, C LIFTON, a nd HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s. Jun C ui, a native and c i tiz e n of C hina , pe titions for re v i e w of the B oa rd of Im m i gration Appe a l s ’ (“ B IA” ) orde r de ny ing he r m otion to re ope n. Our jurisdic tion is governe d by 8 U.S.C . § 1252. W e re vie w for a buse of disc re t ion the 

# FIL ED APR 18 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).de nia l of a

m otion to re ope n. Granados-Ose gue ra v . Muk

ase y , 546 F.3d 1011, 1014 (9th C ir. 2008). W e de ny in pa rt a nd dismiss in pa

rt the pe tition for re vie w. The B IA did not a

buse its disc re tion in deny ing C ui’ s m otion to re ope n, whe re she fa ile d to dep art the Unite d State s during he r volunta ry de pa rture pe riod and wa s the re fore sta

tutorily ine ligiblefor the re lie f re que ste d. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1229c (d)(1)(B ) (im

posing a te n-y e ar bar to c e rta i n form s of re lie f, inc luding a djustm e nt of sta

tus, for a lie ns who fa il to depa rt within the

tim e pe riod spe c ifie d); Granados-Ose

gue ra , 546 F.3d a

t 1015-16 (whe n a

pe titione r file s a

m otion to re ope n a fte r the e xpira

t ion of thevolunta

ry de p arture pe riod, the B IA is c om pe lle d to de ny the m otion ba se d on the pe titione r’ s fa ilure to de pa rt whe re the te n-y e ar bar a pplie s to there lie f sought). W e la c k jurisdic tion to c onside r C ui’ s c ha lle nge to the B IA’ s M arc h 9, 2015, dism issa l of he r a

ppe a l be c a

use this pe tition is not tim e ly a s to tha t orde r. Se e 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(1). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 5 - 7 2 9 0 5 2
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Matter of the Marriage of Janda Kay

Mason and Christian Richard Mason and In the Interest of E.M.A., a Child

No. 06

- 19

- 00058

- CV Appeal from the 8th District Court of R ains County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 10,368 ).

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice

Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that the appeal should be dismissed

for want of prosecution. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal.

We further order that the appellant pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED FEBRUARY 6, 2020

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Order filed June 17, 2022 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-20-00420-CV

____________

DR. HANI HANNA, Appellant

V.

LOCUMTENENS.COM LLC D/B/A LT MEDICAL LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1107602

O R D E R 

The clerk’s record was filed June 29, 2020. Our review has determined that a 

relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App. P.

34.5(c). The record does not contain the Notice of Intent to Dismiss entered 

on December 18, 2019. 
The Harris County Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record on 

or before June 27, 2022, containing the Notice of Intent to Dismiss 

entered on December 18, 2019. 

If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to 

file a supplemental clerk’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted 

item is not a part of the case file. 

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Poissant.
##### 



Exhibit 32.3 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 quarterly report of Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the thee month period ending March 31, 2005 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark Smith, Chairman of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that to my knowledge:  (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 represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company. /s/ MARK SMITHTown Sports International Holdings, Inc.ChairmanMay 3, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 190 (Monday, October 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57554-57555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19665]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Bureau of the Census 2010 Census Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census Bureau) is giving notice 
of a meeting of the 2010 Census Advisory Committee. Committee members 
will address policy, research, and technical issues related to 2010 
Decennial Census programs, including the American Community Survey and 
related programs. Last-minute changes to the agenda are possible, which 
could prevent giving advance notification of schedule changes.

DATES: October 27-28, 2005. On October 27, the meeting will begin at 
approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 5 p.m. On Friday, 
October 28, 2005, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:45 a.m. and 
end at approximately 11:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau, 4700 
Silver Hill

[[Page 57555]]

Road, Federal Building 3, Suitland, Maryland 20746.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeri Green, Committee Liaison Officer, 
Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 3627, Federal Office 
Building 3, Washington, DC 20233, telephone (301) 763-2070, TTY (301) 
457-2540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 2010 Census Advisory Committee is 
composed of a Chair, Vice-Chair, and 20 member organizations--all 
appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The Committee considers the 
goals of the decennial census, including the American Community Survey 
and related programs, and users' needs for information provided by the 
decennial census from the perspective of outside data users and other 
organizations having a substantial interest and expertise in the 
conduct and outcome of the decennial census. The Committee has been 
established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section10(a)(b)).
    A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment. 
However, individuals with extensive statements for the record must 
submit them in writing to the Census Bureau Committee Liaison Officer 
named above at least three working days prior to the meeting. Seating 
is available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis.
    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to the Census Bureau Committee Liaison Officer as 
soon as known, and preferably two weeks prior to the meeting.

    Dated: September 27, 2005.
Charles Louis Kincannon,
Director, Bureau of the Census.
[FR Doc. 05-19665 Filed 9-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
Christian G. PLASMAN, in his individual capacity and derivatively for the benefit of, on behalf of and right of nominal party Bolier & Company, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DECCA FURNITURE (USA), INC., Decca Contract Furniture, LLC, Richard Herbst, Wai Theng Tin, Tsang C. Hung, Decca Furniture, Ltd., Decca Hospitality Furnishings, LLC, Dongguan Decca Furniture Co. Ltd., Darren Hudgins, Decca Home, LLC, and Elan by Decca, LLC, Defendants, and Bolier & Company, LLC, Nominal Defendant, v. Christian J. Plasman a/k/a Barrett Plasman, Third-party Defendant.

No. COA17-358

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 21, 2017

DISMISSED.
#### UNITED STATES of America et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ALLEGHENY-LUDLUM INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, v. Sidney S. HARRIS et al., Intervenors-Appellants.

No. 76-1067.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 28, 1978.

Jack Greenberg, Eric Sehnapper, Charles Ralston, James M. Nabrit, Deborah M. Greenberg, New York City, Barry L. Gold-stein, Washington, D. C., Oscar W. Adams, Jr., James K. Baker, U. W. Clemon, Birmingham, Ala., Gerald Smith, Kenneth Johnson, Norris Ramsey, Baltimore, Md., Bernard D. Marcus, Pittsburgh, Pa., Sidney Raskind, Houston, Tex., Gabrielle K. McDonald, Mark T. McDonald, Houston, Tex., for intervenors-appellants.

William K. Murray, J. R. Forman, Jr., D. Frank Davis, Joseph W. Letzer, Birming*1074ham, Ala., Ralph L. McAfee, Anthony A. Dean, New York City, Leonard L. Scheinholtz, Jerome Powell, Washington, D. C., Walter P. DePorest, III, Patrick W. Ritchey, Carl H. Hellerstedt, Jr., Edward J. O’Connell, Joseph P. Kelly, Pittsburgh, Pa., Thomas R. Alexander, Cleveland, Ohio, S. G. Clark, Jr.,’ David S. Dennison, Pittsburgh, Pa., G. J. Haney, Youngstown, Ohio, Bernard Kleiman, Chicago, 111., Michael Gottesman, George H. Cohen, Robert M. Weinberg, Washington, D. C., Robert T. Moore, Atty., Civil Rights Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., E. C. Perkins, Bethlehem, Pa., Jerome A. Cooper, Birmingham, Ala., Beatrice Rosenberg, Washington, D. C., Carl B. Frankel, Asst. Gen. Counsel, U. S. Steelworkers of America, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendants-appellees.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before WISDOM, GEE and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We have withheld action on petition for rehearing in this matter to await the decision of the Supreme Court in *Christiansburg Garment Co. v. E.E.O.C.,*- U.S. -, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648, No. 76-383 on its docket. That decision was handed down January 23, 1978. Since it squarely and unequivocally determines the standard to be applied in awarding attorneys’ fees to prevailing defendants in such cases as these, we see no occasion to request a response to the petition for rehearing before acting in obedience to *Christiansbnrg.*Fed.R.App.P. Rule 40 provides that such petitions will not “ordinarily” be granted in the absence of such a response, but a case which the Supreme Court specifically and unanimously notes as having adopted the wrong rule, - U.S. -, at -, 98 S.Ct. 694, 54 L.Ed.2d 648, is not an ordinary one.

We therefore grant the petition for rehearing of the appellants Harris, et al., and withdraw that portion of the opinion relating to the standard to be applied in awarding attorneys’ fees to prevailing defendants. This portion consists of the entire paragraph, last but one in the opinion, commencing, “The second question is . . ” 558 F.2d 742, 744, 5 Cir. (1977). No replacement for this language is necessary, the district court being as capable as we of reading and applying *Christiansburg.*

It is so ORDERED.
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

&morablr b. AaXadderr countq rttornay L-'ecoscounty Ft. Stookton, Terar 

### .. ~‘i OplAion Ho, o&o~ lie: Where land' ir,zpurchssed 

### by sitpupder &axi’orsclocwre, w?mrsin all taxiA&uanlta reqr parties, doea land o-1: redeem property by paying to 

### the. county tax 

### oo$leotor .J' <.'

-‘4beSore second ealo by I
‘a. '1 olty, the 

### fullamouAt

., .ai county, et&e, and.

. school district taxes, including penalty aad faterest? l%ar sir:

, .,f

!Wacknowladge **receipt of**  **YOU letter**  **oi JanUtuy**  **$3,** 1945, re~uueatiag cur opinion relative to the sbote captioned matter. Your letter read4 IA part, as follows:

"The City of Ft. Stockton, Texa8, brought oertain tax suits maklng.all taxing unit8 parties,- 

### Judg- %oAt we8taken OADertaiA town lot8 here in City. ,Grder of sale wua leauusdand the City a8 a taxing unit purchased the property, ci6te of ?urchass August 19414 The property wanheld by the city until the two year8 std six UiOAtilShad expired, AAd00.Nov. 7-194 

### badthe SheriPPof this GbaAtp:W refMel1 **tbe** property, and an individual i;urchasad Checity property-not the owner4 The ownor of the property in Xarqh, 1944,-a non-residsntXaIlod to the tax ccl Isctsr the amount OStl.e delinquent taxes 

### dueOAthis property, iAClUdiAg QeAAlty and in- 'Uarest, and he accepted the money aad issued receipt t2crefor. IIe did not colleot the 50$ of the aggregate

~~....__^___ -.._-_..-- . --.

## 16

, Honorable W.

### A. Radden - page 2

total amount, or double the aggregate amountan -provided 

### for In Section 12 above article. The owner did not gay the city taxes and has not yet done so, ’ only paid the County Tax Collector the amount due State, County and School Dietriot, The 0~1~61: 

### claimm be ha8 redeemed the property by paying the taxerr to the tax collector. The present omsr olalmm the property 

### for the reason that be bid it in at last sale, and on aocount of the failure of the owner to pay the double amouht nsceesary to redeem and did not pay the City Taxes.* It is clear from your statement of the fact@, that the owner has not redeemed said land as provided by Section 12, Article 7345b, Y. A. C. 3

., and inasmuoh as the city has m-de a st3cor.dsale of s&Id land, his right to redeem is nowforeclosed. Trusting that the above and foregoing fully answer6 your inquiry, w4ara Yours very truly AT’lWtNEY

GGNEBAL

OFTWXAS

WVG: iw 

### ASslstant
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4394 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4394

 To prohibit the awarding of contracts to contractors responsible for 
            delayed openings of Veterans Affairs facilities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 3, 2014

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the awarding of contracts to contractors responsible for 
            delayed openings of Veterans Affairs facilities.

    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 ``Serve Our Heroes Now Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AWARDING CONTRACTS TO THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR 
              DELAYED OPENINGS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FACILITIES.

    No contract may be awarded to any contractor if the past 
performance of the contractor resulted in the completion of a 
construction project at a facility of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs more than 24 months after the original agreed-upon completion 
date for the project.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


                   LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF GENERAL MEDIA, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           State or Other
                                                                           Jurisdiction of
                                                                           Incorporation
    Name                                                                   Or Organization
    ----                                                                   ---------------
<S>                                                                        <C>
1.  General Media Communications, Inc.                                     Delaware
2.  General Media Films, Inc.                                              New York
3.  General Media International Financial Services (GMIFS) N.V.            Netherlands Antilles
4.  General Media (UK), Ltd.                                               United Kingdom
5.  Penthouse Clubs International Establishment                            Liechtenstein
6.  Penthouse Images Acquisition, Ltd.                                     New York
7.  Penthouse Music, Ltd.                                                  Delaware
8.  Pure Entertainment Telecommunications, Inc.                            New York
9.  Pure Entertainment Telecommunications (Curacao) N.V.                   Netherland Antilles
10. General Media Entertainment, Inc.                                      New York
11. Penthouse Financial Services N.V.                                      Netherland Antilles
12. General Media Art Holding, Inc.                                        Delaware
13. GMCI Internet Operations, Inc. (*)                                     New York
14. GMI On-Line Ventures, Ltd.         (*)                                 Delaware
15. General Media Automotive Group, Inc. (**)                              New York
16. GMI Worldwide On-Line Services, Inc. (***)                             Delaware
</TABLE>


(*) Formed January 13, 2000.
(**) Merged Into General Media Communications, Inc. On February 7, 2000.
(***) Merged Into General Media Communications, Inc. On February 4, 2000.
**Important legal notice**

*|*

# 12004V400

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE VI — THE FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - CHAPTER I — PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INSTITUTIONS - Section 4 — Provisions common to Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies - Article III-400***Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0172 - 0173*

Article III-400

1. The Council shall adopt European regulations and decisions determining:

(a) the salaries, allowances and pensions of the President of the European Council, the President of the Commission, the Union Minister for Foreign Affairs, the members of the Commission, the Presidents, members and Registrars of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the Secretary-General of the Council;

(b) the conditions of employment, in particular the salaries, allowances and pensions, of the President and members of the Court of Auditors;

(c) any payment to be made instead of remuneration to the persons referred to in points (a) and (b).

2. The Council shall adopt European regulations and decisions determining the allowances of the members of the Economic and Social Committee.

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