alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 27, 2024

NO. 03

- 24

- 00160

- CV

D & S Gibson Group, LLC; Dante Gibson, and Sharon Gibson , Appellant s

v.

Lone Ranger Capital Investments REIT, LLC; and Trustee Benjamin K. Willia m s , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES SMITH AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’ S MOTION

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

T his is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on March 5, 2024

. Appell ant ’s have

filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion , the Court agrees th at the

motion shoul d be granted . Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismiss es the appeal

. The

appellant s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
#### STATE v. AL DAVIS, VENDING MACHINE COMPANY and J. N. FINCH.

(Filed 20 November, 1940.)

Appeal by defendant J. N. Finch from *Parker, J.,*at September Criminal Term, 1940, of Wake.

Affirmed.

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.*

*W. Brantley Womble for defendant.*

Clarkson, J.

This case is governed by the opinion of *S. v. Abbott, ante,*470.

For the reasons given in that opinion, the judgment of the court below in this case is

Affirmed.

Stacy, C. J., and Barnhill and Winborne, JJ., concur in result.
Order entered October 7 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 22
- 00779
- CV HUFFMAN ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC AND PRAIRIE CAPITAL, LLC , Appellant s V.
MAURICE COLTER AND NI
- IDA COLTER , Appellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 21
- 03561
- B

O RDER The reporter’s record in this appeal is overdue

. Accordingly, we ORDER Robin Washington, Official Court Reporter for C ounty Court at Law No.2, to file,
no later than October 21, 2022, either the record or written verification no hearings
were recorded.
We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Washington and the parties.
/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTI CE
TDCJ Offender Details Page 1 of2 

S3,+1J-VI 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE New Offender Search 

Offender Information Details 

Return to Search list 

SID Number: 

TDCJ Number: 

Name: 

Race: 

Gender: 

DOB: 

Maximum Sentence Date: 

Current Facility: 

Projected Release Date: 

Parole Eligibility Date: 

Offender Visitation Eligible: 

02092863 

01680339 

LOPEZ,PEDRO GARCIA 

H 

M 

1953-09-02 

2022-09-12 

STEVENSON 

2022-09-12 

2016-09-11 

YES 

Information provided is updated once daily during weekdays and multiple times per day 

on visitation days. Because this information is subject to change, family members and 

friends are encouraged to call the unit prior to traveling for a visit. 

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE: 

Scheduled Release Date: Offender is not scheduled for release at this time. 

Scheduled Release Type: Will be determined when release date is scheduled. 

Scheduled Release Location: Will be determined when release date is scheduled. 

Parole Review Information 

Offense History: 

Offense 

Date 

I 

Offense 

I 

Sentence 

Date 

I 

County Case No. 

I I 

Sentence (YYMM-D D) 

http://offender.tdcj.texas.gov/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=02092863 8/25/2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   75,274
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    244,196
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               362,965
<PP&E>                                         207,975
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 933,938
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          221,604
<BONDS>                                        357,408
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           819
<OTHER-SE>                                     349,893
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   933,938
<SALES>                                      1,193,485
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,193,485
<CGS>                                          726,016
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  726,016
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               276,298
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              22,926
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                168,245
<INCOME-TAX>                                    64,880
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            103,365
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   103,365
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.24
        

</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 17, 2014

NO. 03-13-00575-CV

Longhorn Junction Land & Cattle, LLC, Gregory Hall and Bruce Barton, Appellants

v.

George Garver, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 277TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on June 26, 2013. The parties have

filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered the motion, the Court agrees 

that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the motion and dismisses the 

appeal. Each party shall bear their own costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the 

court below.
## Summary Measures and Graphs

- Individual Provisions
- Retirement Age

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						C2.8: Starting in 2026, convert all disabled-worker beneficiaries to retired-worker status upon attainment of their earliest eligibility age (EEA) rather than their normal retirement age (NRA). After conversion, apply the early retirement reduction for retirement at EEA (currently 30 percent for those age 62 in 2026) phased in over 40 years.**

|  |  |
|--|--|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 2000 AND FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENT.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                       1,103,496
<SECURITIES>                                    13,157
<RECEIVABLES>                                   54,235
<ALLOWANCES>                                     9,372
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,194,191
<PP&E>                                         540,132
<DEPRECIATION>                                  76,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,731,968
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           96,284
<BONDS>                                        514,909
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,084
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,107,198
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,731,968
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,161
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,120
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,780
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,431
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,994
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (61,270)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (61,270)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (61,270)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.59)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

Genaera Corporation: 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-52882, 33-71984, 333-10889, 333-62073, 333-69824 and 333-121163) and registration statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-106678, 333-73798 and 333-121577) of Genaera Corporation of our reportsdated March 14, 2007, with respect to the balance sheets of Genaera Corporation as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ equity and comprehensive loss, and cash flows foreach of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2006, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006 and the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting as of December 31, 2006, which reports appear in the December 31, 2006 annual report on Form 10-K of Genaera Corporation. 

Our report dated March 14, 2007 on the financial statements refers to the adoption of the fair value method of accounting for stock-based compensation as required by Statement of Financial Accounting StandardsNo. 123R, *Share-Based Payment*, effective January 1, 2006. **

/s/ KPMG LLP 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

March 14, 2007
#### In the Matter of Francis Greenwald, Appellant, v Raymond Kelly, as Police Commissioner of the City of New York, Respondent.

[773 NYS2d 296]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael Stallman, J.), entered November 20, 2002, which denied petitioner’s application to annul respondent Police Commissioner’s revocation of petitioner’s target pistol and rifle/shotgun licenses and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The penalty of revocation does not shock our sense of fairness. Substantial evidence supports respondent’s findings that petitioner committed insurance fraud, failed to immediately notify the Licensing Division of his arrest therefor *(see*38 RCNY 5-30 [c] [1]), and then failed to comply with the Licensing Division’s direction to provide it with a letter of explanation *(see*38 RCNY 5-30 [g]). Such circumstances warrant revocation *(cf. Matter of Trimis v New York City Police Dept.,*300 AD2d 162 [2002], *lv denied*100 NY2d 503 [2003]; *Matter of Shulman v Safir,*249 AD2d 10 [1998]). No basis exists to disturb the Hearing Officer’s findings of credibility rejecting petitioner’s claims that he is innocent and pleaded guilty to a lesser degree of insurance fraud than charged simply to avoid the expense of a trial *(see Matter of Berenhaus v Ward,*70 NY2d 436, 443, 444 [1987]). We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.
|EXHIBIT 23.1


Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-14363; Form S-8 No. 333-19141; Form S-8 No. 333-24329;
 Form S-8 No. 333-35701; Form S-8 No. 333-81783; Form S-8 No. 333-92711; Form S-8 No. 333-48376; Form S-8 No. 333-09090;
Form S-8 No. 333-09092; Form S-8 No. 333-11036; Form S-8 No. 333-68218; Form S-8 No.
333-101048; Form S-8 No. 333-100733; Form S-8 No. 333-100730; Form S-8 No. 333-100729 and
Form S-3 No. 333-91449) of Dendrite International, Inc. of our report dated January 29, 2003,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of
Dendrite International, Inc. included in this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
| |  | ---------------------

|MetroPark, New Jersey
April 18, 2003
|------------------------------------
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Office of the Secretary

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Department of Labor published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of December 24, 2015, inviting public comments on the Placement Verification and Follow Up of Job Corps Participants Information Collection Request (80 FR 80389). The document contained an incorrect date.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Contact Michel Smyth by telephone at 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email to                         *DOL_PRA_PUBLIC@dol.gov.*

## Correction

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of December 24, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015-32377, on page 80389, (80 FR 80389) in the second column, correct the                         **DATES**                         caption to read:                    

# DATES:

The OMB will consider all written comments that agency receives on or before January 29, 2016.

Dated: January 20, 2016.

Michel Smyth,

Departmental Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 2016-01899 Filed 2-2-16; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4510-FT-P
Skip to main content

# Social Security

Search
Menu
Español
Sign in

## Formula for Family Maximum Benefit
#### E. McL. WILSON et al., v. O. O. ALLSBROOK, Trustee, et al.

(Filed 5 April, 1933.)

Reference G a — Trial court may re-refer cause after Supreme Court has remanded appeal with direction that order of confirmation he vacated.

Where the Supreme Court has remanded a cause with direction that the order of the trial court in confirming the report of the referee be vacated and that further proceedings be had according to law, the trial judge has the power, the original reference having been by consent, to again refer the cause to the referee for additional findings in accordance with the opinion of the Supreme Court, such order being tantamount to vacating the order of confirmation, and the appellants being entitled to notice and a hearing before the referee with right of appeal.

Appeal by plaintiffs from' *Sinclair, J.,*at February Term, 1933, of New HaNOver.

Civil action beard on motion to- vacate judgment confirming- referee’s report without more. Motion denied and plaintiffs appeal.

*Isaac G. Wright and R. G. Grady for plaintiffs.*

*Chas. B. Newcomb and John A. Steverus for defendants.*

Stacy, C. J.

This is the same case that was before us at the last term, 203 N. 0., 498, opinion filed 9 November, 1932. Error having-been found in the judgment of the Superior Court, the cause was remanded with direction that the order of confirmation be vacated and further proceedings had according to the usual course and practice of the court.

Plaintiffs moved, upon said opinion and judgment being certified down, that the order of confirmation be vacated, without more, thus seeking to have the case tried before a jury. The court declined to sign the judgment tendered on this motion, but remanded the cause “in accordance with the opinion of the Supreme Court” to the referee for additional findings and supplement report. This was within his authority, the original reference having been by consent. *Morisey v. Swinson,*104 N. C., 555, 10 S. E., 754; *Driller Co. v. Worth,*117 N. C., 515, 23 S. E., 427; *Flemming v. Roberts,*77 N. C., 415.

The order sending the cause back to the referee was perforce tantamount to vacating the previous order of confirmation. Of course, the plaintiffs are entitled to notice and a hearing before the referee, with right of appeal to the court in case his additional findings are adverse. As thus construed, we perceive no cause for complaint on the part of the plaintiffs.

Affirmed.
1The HONORABLE CHARLES B. KORNMANN, United States District Judge

for the District of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3158

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Juvenile TSB, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 4, 2000

 Filed: February 11, 2000

___________

Before LOKEN, BRIGHT, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The district court1 adjudicated TSB to be a juvenile delinquent based upon the

finding that he had caused and attempted to cause a child under the age of 12 to engage

in a sexual act, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2241(c), 2246(2), and 5032. The

court sentenced TSB to 3 years probation. TSB’s counsel has filed a brief, in which

she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, and has moved to withdraw pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). We granted TSB permission to file a pro
-2-

se supplemental brief, and after consulting with the Federal Public Defender for the

District of South Dakota, he has declined to do so.

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in an appeal from a juvenile

adjudication, we consider whether the evidence is sufficient to convince the district

court of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, viewing the evidence in the

light most favorable to the court’s determination, and accepting all reasonable

inferences supporting the determination. See United States v. L.B.G., 131 F.3d 1276,

1277 (8th Cir. 1997). In this case, the court disbelieved TSB’s testimony in favor of

the government witnesses’ testimony, and carefully considered the weaknesses in the

government witnesses’ testimony elicited by the defense. We conclude that the court

did not err in finding TSB guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v.

E.R.B., 86 F.3d 129, 130 (8th Cir. 1996) (district court, as finder of fact in juvenile

case, weighs credibility of witnesses and any contradictions between testimony and

other evidence; court’s credibility findings can almost never be clearly erroneous).

After review of counsel’s Anders brief, along with our independent review of the

record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous

issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, and grant counsel’s

motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
* 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 November 5, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40100 Summary Calendar

BRUCE LEE WILLIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DIRECTOR TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; WARDEN, Telford Unit; DON KASPAR, Regional Program Administrator; B. PIERCE, Regional Program Administrator; UNKNOWN WEST, Chaplain; ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 5:02-CV-211

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Bruce Lee Willis, Texas prisoner # 717354, appeals the district court’s dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaints based on his failure to exhaust his prison administrative remedies. The district court read Willis’s complaints as stating that he had not exhausted and the courtNo. 03-40100 -2- dismissed because Willis did not provide documentation verifying that he had exhausted. However, while Willis checked on the complaint forms that he did not exhaust both steps of the prison grievance procedure, he asserted further that the prison refused to answer or return his Step 2 grievances. If Willis filed Step 2 grievances as his liberally-construed complaints allege, then he complied with Texas’ two-step grievance procedure, and the grievances are deemed exhausted when the time for the prison to respond to them expired. See Powe v. Ennis , 177 F.3d 393, 394 (5th Cir. 1999). The district court did not address whether Willis had actually exhausted his administrative remedies, but dismissed the complaints because Willis failed to provide proof of exhaustion. The dismissal on that basis was erroneous because Willis was entitled to rely upon his pleadings in asserting exhaustion. See Underwood v. Wilson , 151 F.3d 292, 296 (5th Cir. 1998). The judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the district court for further consideration of the exhaustion issue. Willis’ motion to amend or supplement the record on appeal is DENIED. VACATED AND REMANDED; MOTION DENIED.