alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1517 W EST F RONT S TREET  S UITE 354  TYLER , TX 75702  T EL : 903-593-8471  FAX : 903-593-2193 Serving Anderson, Angelina, Cherokee, Gregg, Henderson, Houston, Nacogdoches, Rains, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine, Shelby, Smith, Trinity, Upshur, Van Zandt and Wood Counties www.12thcoa.courts.state.tx.us C HIEF J USTICE J AMES T. W ORTHEN J USTICES B RIAN H OYLE G REG N EELEY 

# TWELFTH 

# C OURT OF 

# A PPEALS C LERK C ATHY S. L USK C HIEF S TAFF A TTORNEY M ARGARET H USSEY 

## April 7, 2015 Ms. Reba Squyres District Clerk Angelina County P. O. Box 908 Lufkin, TX 75902-0908 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * RE: Case Number: 12-14-00360-CR Trial Court Case Number: 2013-0659 Style: TenishaRuth v. The State of Texas Pursuant to Rule 18.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, enclosed herewith is the Mandate issued in the above cause. When the District or County Clerk has executed the Mandate in accordance with the opinion of this Court, the Clerk is requested to fill in the information below and to return the attached copy to this office. Very truly yours, CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK By:_____________________________ Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk C C : Ms. Sandra Martin (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Mr. Albert J. CharanzaJr. (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL) Mandate executed on 8THday of APRIL , 2015. Brief explanation of action taken: FILE STAMPED AND ENTERED ROBIN J. CRAIN DEPUTY District Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Ex-27.1Q 1996
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          25,967
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,383
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (595)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                31,155
<PP&E>                                           4,984
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,880)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  33,562
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,514
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,248
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    33,562
<SALES>                                          2,453
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,097
<CGS>                                              857
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,226
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,002
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,989)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,989)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,989)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.32)


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MICHAEL LEE, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 16

- 2106 (KBJ)

)

MANPOWER US INC., et al.

, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on Defendants ’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s

Complaint [ECF No. 5 ]. Defendants filed their motion on October 28, 2016, and on

October 31, 2016

, the Court issued an Order [ECF No. 6] that advised P laintiff of his

obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local civil rules of this

Court. ( See Neal v. Kelly , 963 F.2d 453, 456 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Fox v. Strickland , 837

F.2d 507, 509 (D.C. Cir. 1988).) Specifically, the Court notified P lainti ff that, if he

failed to file an opposition or other response to D efendants’ motion by November 28

,

2016, the Court would treat their motion as conceded.

To date, P laintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion, or requested more

time to fil e an opposition, or advised the Court of any change of address. T herefore,

this Court will GRANT D efendants’ motion as conceded

, and will dismiss this action.

An Order is issued separately.

DATE: December 13, 2016 KETANJI BROWN JACKSON

United States District Judge
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6120

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WANI REASHA LOGAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-92-56-G, CA-94-601-2)

Submitted: May 26, 1998 Decided: June 3, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wani Reasha Logan, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying his

motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) (current version at 28

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998)), and denying his motion

for reconsideration. We previously remanded a portion of this case

to the district court for consideration of Appellant's challenge to

his conviction under 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West Supp. 1998), in

light of the Supreme Court's holding in Bailey v. United States,

516 U.S. 137 (1995). On remand, the district court vacated Appellant's § 924(c) conviction and dismissed the relevant count in the

indictment. The district court's decision on remand disposes of one

the claims Appellant presented on appeal.

As to Appellant's remaining claims, we have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation

of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Logan, Nos. CR-92-56-G, CA-94-601-2 (M.D.N.C. July 5 & Dec. 11,

1995). See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 4557 (U.S.

June 23, 1997) (No. 96-6298). 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
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 1 of16

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 2 of16

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 3 of16

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 4 of16

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 5 of16

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 6 of16

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 7 of16

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 8 of16

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 9 of16

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 10of 16

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 11of 16

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 12of 16

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 13of 16

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 14of 16

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 15of 16

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4034    Filed: 09/30/19    Entered: 09/30/19 13:24:54    Page 16of 16
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 40070 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

FELIPE MILLAN

- FLORES , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:15

- CR

- 844

- 1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Felipe Millan

- Flores has 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). Millan

- Flores has filed a respo nse. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Millan

- Flores ’s
claims of ine ffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to consider the

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 9, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-40070 Document: 00513629357 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2016No. 16

- 40070

2 claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States v. Isgar , 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014 )

. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Millan

- Flores ’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See
5 TH C IR

. R . 42.2. Millan

- Flores motion for the appointment of new counsel is DENIED as untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902

- 03 (5th Cir. 1998)

. Case: 16-40070 Document: 00513629357 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2016
Second Department,

February Term, 1893.

#### George Gerbig, Respondent, v. The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company, Appellant.

— Judgment and order denying new trial reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT KEITH W . C A

NDLER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. HAM M ONS, C orre c tiona l Offic e r, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-16632 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-01969-JAM C KD M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. M e nde z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 13, 2014 ** B e fore : SC HR O EDER , THOM AS, and HUR W ITZ, C i rc uit Judge s . Ke ith W . C andle r, a

C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a l s pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s sum

m ary judgm e nt in his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging de libe rate 

# FIL ED AUG 22 2014 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 9th C ir. R . 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).indiffe re nc e to his se rious m e dic a l ne e ds. 1 W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C .

§ 1291. W e re vie wde novo. J e tt v . Pe nne r , 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th C ir. 2006). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ba s is supporte d by

the re c ord, J

o hnson v . Riv e rside He althc a reSy

s., LP , 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th C ir. 2008), a nd we a ffirm . Sum m a ry judgm e nt wa s prope r be c a use C andle r fa ile d

to ra ise a ge nuine disputeof m ate ria l fa c t a s to whe the r Ham m ons wa s de libe rate ly

indiffe re nt to his a sthm a and bre athing problem s . Se eFarme r v . Bre nnan , 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (a prison offic i a l is de libe rate ly indiffe re nt only

if he or she “ knows of a

nd disre ga rds a n e xc e ssive risk to inmate he a l th” ); se ealso Le mirev . C a l. De p’t of C orr. &Re hab. , 726 F.3d 1062, 1084 (9th C i r. 2013) (de fe nda nts “ did not a c t with de libe rat e indiffe re nc e towa rd [the prisone r] a s the y re a sona bly re lie d on the e xpe rtise of the prison’ s m e dic a l sta ff” ); J e tt , 439 F.3d a

t 1096 (if the ha

rm is a n isola te d e xc e ption to the prisone r’ s ove ra l l tre atm e nt, it ordina rily m ilita te s a ga inst a finding of de libe rate indiffe re nc e ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng C andle r’ s m otion for a p pointm e nt of c ounse l be c a use C andle r fa ile d to de m onstra te e xc e ptiona l

1 C andle r file d his c o m

pla int a nd a ppe a l unde r the nam e “ Ke ith C andle r .” Howe ve r, he is im

prisone d unde r the nam e “ Ke ith C h andle r .” C a

ndle r’ s prison m e dic a l re c ords a

n d m any of the doc um e nts file d in thedistric t c ourt, inc luding the re le va nt distric t c o urt orde rs, re fe r to Appe lla nt a s “ Ke i th C

handle r .” 1 3 - 1 6 6 3 2 2c irc um s ta

nc e s . Se e Palme r v . Valde z , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th C ir. 2009) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd re quire m e nt of “ e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta n c e s” for a ppointm e nt of c ounse l ). AFFIRM E D.

1 3 - 1 6 6 3 2 3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Henry G. Luke, Appellant.

We have examined the case upon the merits, and, in so far as the facts are concerned or the exercise of a discretion vested in this court, a new trial should be denied. But the judgment and conviction are reversed on questions of law only, and a new trial ordered. For that purpose the proceedings are remitted to the Court of Sessions of Monroe county. Opinion by

Haight, J.
#### Francis Pearsall, Respondent, v. Peter Robbins and Others, Appellants.

Judgment modified by striking out the provision for costs, and as modified affirmed, without costs. .No opinion.

Jenks, P. J., Hirschberg, Burr, Woodward and Rich, JJ., concurred.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of Wells Real Estate Fund I (the Registrant) for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief Executive
Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate General Partner of the Registrant, hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III                              
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive
Officer May 13, 2005





|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                              
|Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial
Officer May 13, 2005
NO. 07-05-0292-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

NOVEMBER 14, 2005

______________________________

PHILLIP CHRISTIAN, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. A15160-0309; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and HANCOCK, JJ.

ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Appellant Phillip Christian has given notice of appeal from a judgment of conviction

and sentence for the offense of theft. The appellate court clerk received and filed the trial

court clerk’s record on September 14, 2005. The trial court reporter’s record was filed on

September 12, 2005. 

By letter dated October 25, 2005, the appellate clerk reminded counsel for appellant

that appellant’s brief was due on October 14, 2005, and that neither the brief nor a motion
2

for a further extension of time had been received. Counsel for appellant was further

advised by such letter that if no response to the letter was received by November 4, 2005,

the appeal would be abated to the trial court for hearing pursuant to Rule of Appellate

Procedure 38.8(b). No response has been received. 

Accordingly, this appeal is abated and the cause is remanded to the trial court. TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). Upon remand, the judge of the trial court is directed to immediately

cause notice to be given of and to conduct a hearing to determine: 

(1) whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal; 

(2) if appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, then whether appellant

is indigent, and if not indigent, whether counsel for appellant has

abandoned the appeal; 

(3) if appellant desires to prosecute this appeal, whether appellant’s

present counsel should be replaced; and

(4) what orders, if any, should be entered to assure the filing of

appropriate notices and documentation to dismiss appellant’s appeal

if appellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal, or, if appellant

desires to prosecute this appeal, to assure that the appeal will be

diligently pursued.

If the trial court determines that the present attorney for appellant should be replaced, the

court should cause the clerk of this court to be furnished the name, address, and State Bar

of Texas identification number of the newly-appointed or newly-retained attorney. 

In support of its determination, the trial court shall prepare and file written findings

of fact and conclusions of law and cause them to be included in a supplemental clerk’s

record. The hearing proceedings shall be transcribed and included in a supplemental 
3

reporter’s record. Those supplemental records shall be submitted to the clerk of this court

no later than December 14, 2005.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re )

) Case No. 

) 

) Chapter

Debtor(s). )

____________________________________)

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF 

ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

, whose business address and telephone number is

and who is an active member in good standing of the bar of

having applied in the above-entitled action for admission to practice in the Northern District of

California on a pro hac vice basis, representing

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application is granted, subject to the terms and

conditions of Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must indicate appearance pro hac

vice. Service of papers upon and communication with co-counsel designated in the application

will constitute notice to the represented party. All future filings in this action are subject to the

Bankruptcy Local Rules and Electronic Case Filing Procedures adopted by the United States

Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. 

Dated: ____________________________________

United States Bankruptcy Judge

19-30088-DM

11

PG&E CORPORATION and 

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

David Wirt

131 South Dearborn Street, 30th Floor, Chicago, IL 60603 

Telephone: 312.263.3600

Illinois

Deutsche Bank

Signed and Filed: February 8, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

February 08, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 391 Filed: 02/08/19 Entered: 02/08/19 15:59:00 Page 1 of 1
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	Former U.S. Ambassador Assumes Civilian Deputy Role at SOUTHCOM
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4619" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/DOD2/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/7/Images/SOUTHCOM_logo_thumb.jpg?ver=SIvIeRRofyrg5ZHPpvvh6Q%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">Former U.S. Ambassador Assumes Civilian Deputy Role at SOUTHCOM</h1>
    </div>
    

    <div><b>By U.S. Southern Command Public Affairs</b> <span class="date">/ Published Feb. 21, 2017</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    <p>MIAMI -- Ambassador Liliana Ayalde has assumed duties as U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) Civilian Deputy to the Commander and Foreign Policy Advisor.</p>
<p>As the ranking Senior Foreign Service Officer at the command, Ayalde will lead interactions with the U.S. Department of State, other civilian executive agencies, and state governments, and will provide geopolitical, political-military, and economic advice.</p>
<p>Ambassador Ayalde comes to SOUTHCOM with 33 years of experience in the diplomatic service.  She is a member of the Senior Foreign Service with the rank of Career Minister.  She most recently served as the U.S. Ambassador to the Federative Republic of Brazil (2013-2016).  Ayalde previously served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs (Central America, the Caribbean, and Cuba), Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Latin American and Caribbean Bureau for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Paraguay (2008-2011).  While serving with USAID, she was posted in Bangladesh, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Colombia, and Washington, D.C. </p>
<p>Ayalde is a native of Maryland and holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the School of International Studies at American University in Washington, D.C. and a Master of Public Health from Tulane University in Louisiana.  She is the recipient of numerous honors and awards. Ayalde is fluent in Spanish and Portuguese and has a working knowledge of French.</p><br />
</div>

    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>