alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### T HOMPSON 

### & K NIGHT LLP

REX D. VANMIDDLESWORTH ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AUSTIN DALLAS FORT WORTH HOUSTON LOS ANGELES NEW YORK SAN FRANCISCO

---------------------------------------------- - ALGIERS LONDON MÉXICO CITY MONTERREY PARIS 98 SAN JACINTO BOULEVARD ● SUITE 1900 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 512.469.6100 FAX 512.469.6180

www.tklaw.com DIRECT DIAL: (512) 404-6701 EMAIL: rexvanm@tklaw.com

August 28, 2015

VIA E-FILE

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle, Clerk Court of Appeals, Third District of Texas 209 West 14th Street, Room 101 Austin, Texas 78701

Re: Appeals Docket No. 03-14-00735-CV ; Trial Court Case No. D-1-GN-13- 000121; Entergy Texas, Inc. v. Public U tility Commission of Texas. et. al.

Dear Mr. Kyle:

In response to your letter dated August 17, 2015, please be advised that the undersigned intends to present oral argument in this case on behalf of Texas Industrial Energy Consumers on Septembe r 23, 2015, at 1:30 p.m..

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Rex D. VanMiddlesworth Rex D. VanMiddlesworth State Bar No. 20449400 Benjamin Hallmark State Bar No. 24069865 rexvanm@tklaw.com benjamin.hallmark@tklaw.com ACCEPTED 03-14-00735-CV 6699497 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 8/28/2015 12:07:56 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKAugust 28, 2015 Page 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

As required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.5, I certify that on the 28 th day of August, 2015, the foregoing document was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the electronic case filing system of the Court, and that a true and correct copy was served on the following lead counsel for all parties listed below via electronic service:



### Counsel for Entergy Texas, Inc. Marnie A. McCormick Patrick J. Pearsall Duggins Wren Mann & Romero, LLP 600 Congress Ave., Ste. 1900 Austin, Texas 78701 512.744.9300 512.744.9399 (fax) mmccormick@dwmrlaw.com ppearsall@dwmrlaw.com

Counsel for the Public Utility Commission of Texas Elizabeth R. B. Sterling Megan M. Neal Environmental Protection Division Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711-2548 512.463.2012 512.457.4616 (fax) elizabeth.sterling@te xasattorneygeneral.gov

Counsel for Office of Public Utility Counsel Sara J. Ferris Office of Public Utility Counsel 1701 N. Congress Ave., Ste. 9-180 P.O. Box 12397 Austin, Texas 78711-2397 512.936.7500 512.936.7520 (fax) Sara.ferris@opuc.texas.govAugust 28, 2015 Page 3



### Counsel for State Agencies Katherine H. Farrell Assistant Attorney General Administrative Law Division Energy Rates Section Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548, MC 018-12 Austin, Texas 78711-2548 512.475.4237 512.320.0167 (fax) katherine.farrell@texa sattorneygeneral.gov

Counsel for Cities Daniel J. Lawton The Lawton Law Firm, P.C. 12600 Hill Country Blvd., Ste. R-275 Austin, TX 78738 512.322.0019 855.298.7978 (fax) dlawton@ecpi.com

/s/ Benjamin Hallmark
Case 1:05-cv-05251-MBM Document 4 Filed 10/18/2005 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:05-cv-05251-MBM Document 4 Filed 10/18/2005 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

JAMES MICHAEL MANNING, JR., 

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 3:10cv220/RS/EMT

ANTONIO SANTINI, et al.

Defendants.

__________________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Plaintiff commenced this action

by filing a complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1331 (doc. 1). Plaintiff subsequently filed several

amended complaints (see docs. 6, 9, 13, 22, 29, 35, 41, 46, and 54), most of which were filed at his

own initiative. On August 29, 2011, this court entered an order giving Plaintiff thirty (30) days in

which file a tenth amended complaint (doc. 65). Plaintiff failed to file a tenth amended complaint;

therefore, on October 4, 2011, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause, within

twenty-one (21) days, why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order

of the court (doc. 67). The time for compliance with the show cause order has now elapsed with no

response from Plaintiff.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

That this case be DISMISSED without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with an

order of the court.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 31st day of October 2011.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-00220-RS-EMT Document 68 Filed 10/31/11 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within

fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear

on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use only. A copy of objections shall be

served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of

factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir.

1988).

Case No: 3:10cv220/RS/EMT

Case 3:10-cv-00220-RS-EMT Document 68 Filed 10/31/11 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 1 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 2 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 3 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 4 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 5 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 6 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 7 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 8 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 9 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 10 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 11 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 12 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 13 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 14 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 15 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 16 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 17 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 18 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 19 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 20 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 21 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 22 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 23 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 24 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 25 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 26 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 27 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 28 of 29

Case 1:07-cv-03583-LBS-RLE     Document 28-8      Filed 05/30/2008     Page 29 of 29
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 10-1052

___________ Norman L. Miller, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Internal Medicine Specialists, Inc., * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: June 25, 2010 Filed: June 30, 2010

___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Norman Miller appeals the district court’s 1 order dismissing his civil action. After careful de novo review, see Strand v. Diversified Collection Serv., Inc. , 380 F.3d 316, 317 (8th Cir. 2004), we agree with th e district court that Miller’s complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We also deny Miller’s pending motion.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United St ates District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
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 Quarterly Report of Burrow Mining, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB/A as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Heather  M.T. Ho, Treasurer, Secretary  and
Directorof  Burrow  Mining, Inc.,  certify, pursuant to  18  U.S.C. {section}
1350,  as adopted pursuant to Section  906  of  the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to  the best of 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 presents,  in  all material
     respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results  of  operations of  the
     Company.




                                     /s/ Heather M.T. Ho
                                    ----------------------
                                         Heather M.T. Ho
                                         Treasurer, Secretary and Director
                                         Principal Financial Officer

                                   Date: July 11, 2008
# C_2009176EN.01001601.xml

| 29.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 176/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 176/16

---

Information on the intended closure of complaint No 2003/4297

2009/C 176/06

| 1. | By way of publication in the Official Journal C 268 of 7 November 2003, p. 28, the European Commission acknowledged receipt of complaint No 2003/4297, of which the Commission received more than 100 identical copies sent by different complainants. Complaint No 2003/4297 concerns the transposition in Germany of Directive 85/577/EEC to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises, particularly in the area of secured credit agreements. |
| --- | --- |

1.

By way of publication in the Official Journal C 268 of 7 November 2003, p. 28, the European Commission acknowledged receipt of complaint No 2003/4297, of which the Commission received more than 100 identical copies sent by different complainants. Complaint No 2003/4297 concerns the transposition in Germany of Directive 85/577/EEC to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises, particularly in the area of secured credit agreements.

| 2. | The Commission's services intend to propose to the Commission to close this complaint at one of its forthcoming meetings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission's services intend to propose to the Commission to close this complaint at one of its forthcoming meetings.

| 3. | Should the complainants have further information proving an infringement of Community law, they may communicate this to the Commission within four weeks from the date of publication of this announcement. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Should the complainants have further information proving an infringement of Community law, they may communicate this to the Commission within four weeks from the date of publication of this announcement.

| 4. | Further details can be found on the Internet at the following address:
  http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/gen_rights_en.htm#doorstep |
| --- | --- |

4.

Further details can be found on the Internet at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/rights/gen_rights_en.htm#doorstep

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

TECHSHELL, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10cv154/RS-MD

HARD CANDY CASES, LLC;

SPECK PRODUCT DESIGN, INC.;

IPEARL, INC.; XGEAR, LLC;

CASE-MATE GEORGIA, LLC;

CASE-MATE INTERNATIONAL, LLC;

and CASE-MATE RETAIL, INC.,

Defendants.

___________________________________________/

ORDER

The relief requested by the Consent Motion For Entry Of Protective And

Confidentiality Order (Doc. 65) is granted. The proposed Protective And Confidentiality

Order Limiting The Use And Dissemination Of Confidential Material (Doc. 65-1) is

approved and is incorporated by reference in this Order.

ORDERED on October 18, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PAUL J. CODY,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10cv168/RS-MD

SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF

CANADA,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Amended Joint Scheduling Report (Doc. 15). 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Non-jury trial of this case is scheduled for February 28, 2011 & March 1,

2011, at 8:30 a.m. in Panama City, Florida.

2. Pretrial conference is scheduled for Monday, February 14, 2011, at 3:00 p.m.

in Panama City, Florida. 

ORDERED on November 16, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
connection with Quarterly Report of ESL Teachers, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the “Report”), I,  Mauricio Beltran, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and





2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the
      dates presented and the consolidated result of operations of the Company
      for the periods presented.





By:
            /s/Mauricio BeltranName:
            Mauricio
      BeltranTitle:
            Principal
      Executive Officer,Principal
      Financial Officer and DirectorDate:
            May
      11, 2009





This
certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
ESL Teachers, Inc. and will be retained by ESL Teachers, Inc. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
|        |        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (i)    |   | this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 26, 2010 ("Quarterly Report"), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 |
| (ii)   |   | the information contained in this Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated for the periods presented in the Quarterly Report.  |

|                         |        |                                         |
|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
| /s/ Mary E. Junck       |   | /s/ Carl G. Schmidt                     |
| Mary E. Junck           |   | Carl G. Schmidt                         |
| Chairman, President and |   | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer |
| Chief Executive Officer |   | and Treasurer                           |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

ANTHONY LEROY WAY,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-107-RS-CJK

WALT McNEIL, et al.,

Defendants.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 51).

No objections have been filed.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is 

approved and incorporated in this Order.

2. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED with prejudice under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. 

3. The clerk is directed to close the file.

ORDERED on April 27, 2012.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:10-cv-00107-RS-CJK Document 52 Filed 04/27/12 Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

MICHAEL BROWN,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 3:10cv175/RV/MD

SGT. THORTON,

Defendant.

 

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation dated June 3, 2010. The plaintiff has been furnished a copy of the

report and recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Co de, Section 636(b)(1), and I have made a de

novo determination of those portions to which an objection has been made.

Having considered the report and recommendation and all objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the report and recommendation should be

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge' s report and recommendat ion is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This cause is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) as malicious.

DONE AND ORDERED this 27th day of July, 2010.

/s/ Roger Vinson 

ROGER VINSON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 23

- 00024

- CR

IN RE Steven ROBLES

Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Beth Watkins , Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 1, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On January 12, 2023, rela tor filed a petition for writ of mandamus

. 2 After considering the

petition and this record, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly,

the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). Relator’s motion for

injunctive relief is denied as moot.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 304370 , styled State of Texas v. Steven Robles , pending in the County Court

at Law No. 7

, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Eugenia “ Genie ” Wright presiding.

2 Relator’s filing is titled “Interlocutory Injunction for Abuse of Discretion” which we construe as a petition for writ

of mandamus.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

GREGORY EUGENE WEBSTER,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.: 5:10cv95/RS/EMT

ALEX FOSTER, 

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

ORDER

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and

a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 1, 2). 

Upon review of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the court concludes that Plaintiff

failed to provide the requisite supporting documentation for the motion, specifically, a financial

certificate signed by a prison official with an attached copy of his trust fund account statement

covering the six-month period preceding the filing of the complaint (or the entire period of

Plaintiff’s incarceration if he has not been incarcerated for six months). See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). 

Therefore, the motion will be denied without prejudice to Plaintiff’s refiling a complete motion with

the required supporting documentation. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED without

prejudice.

2. The clerk shall send Plaintiff a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a prisoner

consent form and financial certificate approved for use in the Northern District. This case number

should be written on the forms.

3. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of docketing of this order Plaintiff shall

(1) pay the $350.00 filing fee, or (2) submit a completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with
Page 2 of 2

the requisite prisoner consent form, a financial certificate signed by a prison official, and an attached

computer printout of the transactions in his prison account during the preceding six-month period 

(or the entire period of Plaintiff’s incarceration if he has not been incarcerated for six months).

4. Failure to comply with this order as instructed may result in a recommendation that

this case be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of May 2010.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy 

ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case No.: 5:10cv95/RS/EMT
#### STATE v. GILES

No. 197 PC.

Case below: 34 N.C. App. 112.

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 17 August 1981.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

MANOUCHE SEJOUR et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.: 1:10cv96-SPM/GRJ

STEVEN DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

__________________________________/

ORDER

This cause comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s motion to reopen

discovery for the purpose of deposing Cabioch Bontemps and extending the

deadline for filing dispositive motions until after Mr. Bontemps’ deposition (doc.

109). Defendants do not oppose reopening discovery, but do oppose extending

the dispositive motion deadline. Good cause having been found, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 

1. The motion (doc. 109) is granted.

2. Discovery is re-opened to allow Plaintiffs to re-take the deposition

of Cabioch Bontemps.

3. The deadline for filing dispositive motions is March 12, 2012.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of February, 2012.

S/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Senior United States District Judge

-1-

Case 1:10-cv-00096-SPM-GRJ Document 110 Filed 02/10/12 Page 1 of 1