alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
M otion Denied; Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied ; and Memorandum

Opinion filed F ebruary 9 , 2024.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 24

- 00083

- CV

IN RE JEREMY DAVID OLUMA AND T
. O
. O
. , A MINOR CHILD , Relator s

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 387th Dist r ict Court Fort Bend Cou nty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 22

- DCV

- 293652



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 6, 2024 , relator Jeremy David Oluma and T

. O

. O

. , a minor child filed a petition for writ of m andamus and a motion to stay the underlying proceedings in thi s Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; se e also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator s ask this Court to compel the Honorable Janet2

B. Heppard, presiding judge of the 387th District Court of Fort Bend County , to
vacate several of the trial co urt ’ s orders , including: temporary orders sign ed October 7, 2022; orders of April 25, 2 023, April 26, 2023, and October 5, 2023; tempora ry restr aining order of Oc tober 5, 2023; and modified temporary orders of October 5, 2023

. Relator s ha ve not establishe d that th ey are entitled to mandamus relief. A ccord ingly, we deny relator s ’ petition for wri t of mandamus. Relators ’ motion to stay the underlying proceedings is denied.

P ER CURIAM

Panel c onsi sts of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimm erer and Wilson.
V 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4673 

For the relief of Martha Palmillas de Morales. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2010 

Mr. PASTOR of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Martha Palmillas de Morales. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MARTHA 

4 PALMILLAS DE MORALES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Martha Palmillas de Morales shall be eligible for 

8 issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 

9 to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent resi10 dence upon filing an application for issuance of an immi11 grant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment 

12 of status to lawful permanent resident. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4673 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Martha Palmillas 

2 de Morales enters the United States before the filing dead3 line specified in subsection (c), she shall be considered to 

4 have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise 

5 eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 

6 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date 

7 of the enactment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Martha Palmillas de Morales, the Secretary of 

16 State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, dur17 ing the current or next following fiscal year, the total num18 ber of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 

19 of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) 

20 of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, 

21 the total number of immigrant visas that are made avail22 able to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under 

23 section 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4673 IH

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Martha Palmillas de Mo2 rales shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded 

3 any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and 

4 Nationality Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
Adam Jarmal HODGE v. STATE of North Carolina

No. 182A15-4

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 14, 2018

Steven Armstrong, Assistant Attorney General, Todd Williams, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Adam Jarmal Hodge, for Hodge, Adam Jarmal

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Petitioner on the 23rd of April 2018 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Buncombe County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 14th of August 2018."
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4539 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4539

To require the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, when issuing a 
  research paper, to include all studies, data, and other analyses on 
                       which the paper was based.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 1, 2014

 Mr. Fitzpatrick introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, when issuing a 
  research paper, to include all studies, data, and other analyses on 
                       which the paper was based.

    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 ``Bureau Research Transparency Act''.

SEC. 2. RESEARCH PAPER TRANSPARENCY.

    Section 1013 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 
U.S.C. 5493) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(h) Research Paper Transparency.--Any time the Bureau, either 
through the research unit established by the Director under subsection 
(b)(1) or otherwise, issues a research paper that is available to the 
public, the Bureau shall accompany such paper with all studies, data, 
and other analyses on which the paper was based.''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6305

MICHAEL G. MICK,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JANET RENO; WILLIAM THOMPSON, Warden, FCI,

Morgantown, WV; BRENDA BARRETT, Health Services Administrator; A. BLANCO, Physician's

Assistant; M. BLANCO, Physician's Assistant;

J. AHAMED, Physician's Assistant; R. WHITENER,

Physician's Assistant; VICTOR SIHA, M.D.;

UNNAMED CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, P.T.U.; G. L.

BOGDEN, Assistant Warden, FCI, Morgantown, WV,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-13-1)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 6, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael G. Mick, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his complaint filed under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named

Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The

district court dismissed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d) (1988). We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mick v. Reno, No.

CA-96-13-1 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 16, 1996). 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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-0322

LT Case No. 16-2021-001049-AXXX

_____________________________

DONALD LEE TOLBERT, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

London M. Kite, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Betty Wyatt, Assistant 

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Adam B. Wilson, Assistant 

Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

December 19, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

JAY, BOATWRIGHT, and PRATT, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
#### In re Shirley A. DAVIS, Debtor. Earl L. Vuagniaux, A Professional Corporation, Plaintiff, v. Shirley A. Davis, Defendant.

Bankruptcy No. 02-38410.

Adversary No. 02-3302.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Illinois.

Aug. 5, 2003.

Randall P. Steele, Glen Carbon, IL, for Debtor.

Donald M. Samson, Belleville, IL, trustee.

*OPINION*

GERALD D. FINES, Chief Judge.

This matter having come before the Court for trial on the Third Amended Complaint; the Court, having heard sworn testimony and arguments of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 7052 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.

The Complaint in this matter seeks to have the Debtor’s discharge denied pursuant to two sections of 11 U.S.C. § 727. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A), a debtor must be denied a discharge where it is found that:

> (2) the debtor, with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or an office of the estate charged with custody of property under this title, has transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated, *556or concealed, or has permitted to be transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated, or concealed—

> (A) property of the debtor, within one year before the date of the filing of the petition ...

Under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A), debtor must be denied a discharge where it is found:

> (4) the debtor knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connection with the case—

> (A) made a false oath or account;

The burden of proof is upon the Plaintiff to establish the elements of both 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A) and § 727(a)(4)(A) by a preponderance of the evidence. *Grogan v. Garner,*498 U.S. 279, 111 S.Ct. 654, 112 L.Ed.2d 755 (1991). The Court must find that the Defendant acted with actual intent, requiring a showing of extrinsic evidence suggesting that fraud exists. *In re Smiley,*864 F.2d 562 (7th Cir.1989); *In re Adlman,*541 F.2d 999 (2nd Cir.1976).

In considering the testimony of the parties in this case, the Court finds that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were credible witnesses. The facts as revealed at trial were not in substantial dispute, and, based upon those facts, the Court must conclude that the Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of proof under both § 727(a)(2)(A) and § 727(a)(4)(A). The evidence before the Court does not establish that the Debtor had the requisite intent to defraud creditors. The Court found Debt- or’s explanations of her actions in connection with her filing of the Chapter 7 bankruptcy to be plausible and compelling. As such, the Court must deny the Third Amended Complaint as to Count I. Having denied Count I of the Third Amended Complaint, the Court finds that Count II, requesting that the Court determine and declare a constructive trust, is moot.

*ORDER*

For the reasons set forth in an Opinion entered on the 5th day of August 2003;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

A. The Third Amended Complaint Objecting to Discharge filed by Plaintiff on May 22, 2003, is *DENIED;*and,

B. The Debtor’s discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 524 shall be granted.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4664 

To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide for a one-year 

moratorium on the sale or foreclosure of property owned by surviving 

spouses of servicemembers killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 23, 2010 

Mr. KRATOVIL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide 

for a one-year moratorium on the sale or foreclosure 

of property owned by surviving spouses of 

servicemembers killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4664 IH

1 SECTION 1. ONE-YEAR MORATORIUM ON SALE OR FORE2 CLOSURE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY SUR3 VIVING SPOUSES OF SERVICEMEMBERS 

4 KILLED IN OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM OR 

5 OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM. 

6 (a) MORATORIUM.—Section 303 of the 

7 Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. App. 533) is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub10 section (e); 

11 (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol12 lowing new subsection (d): 

13 ‘‘(d) DEATH OF SERVICEMEMBER.— 

14 ‘‘(1) SALE OR FORECLOSURE.—In the case of 

15 the surviving spouse of a servicemember described in 

16 paragraph (2) who has an obligation described in 

17 subsection (a), a sale, foreclosure, or seizure of prop18 erty for a breach of such an obligation shall not be 

19 valid if made during the one-year period beginning 

20 on the date of the servicemember’s death except— 

21 ‘‘(A) upon a court order granted before 

22 such sale, foreclosure, or seizure with a return 

23 made and approved by the court; or 

24 ‘‘(B) if made pursuant to an agreement as 

25 provided in section 107. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4664 IH

1 ‘‘(2) ELIGIBLE SERVICEMEMBERS.—A service2 member described in this paragraph is a service3 member who dies while serving on active duty in 

4 support of Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation 

5 Enduring Freedom.’’; and 

6 (3) in subsection (a)— 

7 (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), 

8 by inserting after ‘‘servicemember’’ the fol9 lowing: ‘‘, or for purposes of subsection (d), the 

10 surviving spouse of a servicemember described 

11 in paragraph (2) of that subsection,’’; and 

12 (B) in paragraph (1), by inserting after 

13 ‘‘servicemember’’ the following: ‘‘, or for pur14 poses of subsection (d), the surviving spouse of 

15 a servicemember described in paragraph (2) of 

16 that subsection,’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 subsection (a), shall apply with respect to deaths occurring 

19 on or after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4596 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4596

 To limit investor and homeowner losses in foreclosures, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2014

  Mr. Cohen (for himself and Mr. McDermott) introduced the following 
       bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To limit investor and homeowner losses in foreclosures, and for other 
                               purposes.

    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 ``Limiting Investor and Homeowner Loss 
in Foreclosure Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. LOSS MITIGATION PROGRAMS.

    (a) In General.--Section 105 of title 11, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(e) Without limiting the court's authority under subsection (d) 
or under any other statute or rule, the court, by local rule or order, 
may establish and maintain a loss mitigation program for the 
consideration and negotiation of consensual alternatives to avoid 
foreclosure between an individual debtor and the holder of a claim 
secured by a security interest in real property that is the debtor's 
principal residence.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 362(e) of title 11, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(3) If the party in interest requesting relief from the stay 
under subsection (d) of this section participates in a loss mitigation 
program maintained pursuant to section 105(e) of this title, the time 
periods specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection shall be 
tolled during the time period commencing on the date on which such 
participation began and ending on the date on which notice of such 
termination is filed and served on the debtor.''.
                                 <all>
```
In the MATTER OF: R.S.B.

No. COA18-231

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 2, 2018

DISMISSED.
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 17, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40027

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CONSTANTINO PADRON-BALDERAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(5:04-CR-691-1)

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Constantino Padron-Balderas (Padron) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction and 60-month sentence for illegal reentry into the

United States following deportation. Padron claims that 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it treats prior felony and

aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors. Padron’s

constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Padron contends

that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority

of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in the light
of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly

rejected such arguments Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See

United States v. Garza-Lopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied, 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Padron properly concedes that his

argument is foreclosed in the light of Almendarez-Torres and

circuit precedent; he raises it to preserve it for further review.

Padron also contends that the district court erred in

sentencing him under the mandatory guideline regime held

unconstitutional in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)

(Fanfan error). Because Padron preserved the issue in district

court, the Government must show the Fanfan error was harmless

beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Walters, 418 F.3d

461, 463 (5th Cir. 2005). The sentencing transcript is devoid of

evidence that the district court would have imposed the same

sentence under an advisory regime; therefore, the Government has

not borne its burden. Id.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING
HAARHUIS v. CHEEK

332P17-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 19, 2018

Stephanie W. Anderson, Attorney at Law, Walter K. Burton, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Cam Bordman, Attorney at Law, Charles M. Ivey, III, Attorney at Law, Darren A. McDonough, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Cheek, Emily.

J. David Stradley, Attorney at Law, Robert P. Holmes, IV, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, Leto Copeley, Attorney at Law, Durham, for Haarhuis, Joris (Administrator), et al.

Meghan Wray Deutsch-Blanco, Attorney at Law.

Cynthia L. Van Horne, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Burton, Sue & Anderson, LLP.

John P. Barringer, Attorney at Law, Jeffrey B. Kuykendal, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Universal Insurance Company.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 18th of October 2018 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 19th of October 2018."
Serafino Vince CORDARO, Plaintiff v. HARRINGTON BANK, FSB, n/k/a Bank of North Carolina, a North Carolina Bank, Defendant and Bank of North Carolina, Third-Party Plaintiff v. Danny D. Goodwin d/b/a Danny Goodwin Appraisals, Third-Party Defendant

No. 229P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 5, 2018

Mark R. Sigmon, Attorney at Law, For Cordaro, Serafino Vince.

Reid L. Phillips, S. Wilson Quick, Attorneys at Law, For Harrington Bank, FSB, n/k/a Bank of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 24th of July 2018 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order *182was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of December 2018."