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

JUDGMENT RENDERED NO VEMBER 28, 2018

NO. 03

- 18

- 00683

- CV

Iris Knight and Eugene Knight, Appellant s

v.

Marshall Gulley, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, A ND BOURLAND

DISMISSED ON APPELLANTS ’ MOTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on October 1, 2018. Appellants

have filed a 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

a ppeal

. A ppellant s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court

below.
Order entered February 14, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01007

- CV

DOROTHY J. HAIGHT, Appellant

V.

NATIONAL JUDGMENT RE COVERY CENTER, L.P. AS ASSIGNEE OF UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law Rockwall County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1

- 18

- 0173



### O RDER

By postcard dated November 29, 2018, we notified appellant that the deadline for filing
her brief had expired and directe d her to file the brief within ten days. The postcard, however,

was sent in error. While the clerk's record had been filed September 5, 2018, the reporter had
only informed the Court and the parties that no record existed the day before our notice was se nt.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a).
Although the reporter's letter triggered the briefing deadline, appellant has not filed her

brief. See id. Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file her brief no later than March 1, 2019.
We caution appellant that failure to file the brief, or an extension motion, may result in dismissal
of the appeal without further notice. See id. 38.8(a) (1) , 42.3(b),(c).

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 21, 2021

No. 04-21-00275-CV

Luis Ortiz LEANDRO,

Appellant

v.

Sylvia MEDINA,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CV01339

Honorable J Frank Davis, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

This is an appeal in an eviction action. Appellant has filed a motion for an emergency 

stay of the issuance of the writ of possession. In essence, appellant is asking that we stay the 

county court’s judgment pending our determination of the appeal. However, the county court did 

not set a supersedeas bond and appellant did not file a supersedeas bond as required by the Texas 

Property Code. See TEX. PROP. CODE ANN. § 24.007 (“A judgment of a county court may not 

under any circumstances be stayed pending appeal unless, within 10 days of the signing of the 

judgment, the appellant files a supersedeas bond in an amount set by the county court.”).

Accordingly, we DENY appellant’s motion. See id.1

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

1

 We do not address the merits of appellant’s appeal in this order.

FILE COPY
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 21st day of July, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3825 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3825

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 3903 Melear Drive in Arlington, Texas, as the ``Ron Wright Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. RON WRIGHT POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 3903 Melear Drive in Arlington, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Ron Wright Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ron Wright 
Post Office Building''.

            Passed the Senate May 25, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3825

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 3903 Melear Drive in Arlington, Texas, as the ``Ron Wright Post 
                           Office Building''.
```
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-10416 

Conference Calendar

 

JOHN HENRY JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DALLAS-FORT WORTH AIRPORT,

Police Department, HANEY, Sgt.,

RUTHART, Sgt.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CV-2598-P

- - - - - - - - - -

August 22, 1996

Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

John Henry Johnson, # 629320, an inmate of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice appeals the dismissal of his suit

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), now redesignated as

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) by § 804 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act,

Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). Johnson contends
No. 96-10416

- 2 -

that the defendants falsely arrested him, used excessive force on

him, and mistreated him while in custody. We have reviewed the

record and Johnson’s brief and AFFIRM the district court’s

dismissal for essentially the same reasons adopted by the

district court. Johnson v. Dallas Fort-Worth Police Dept., No.

3:95-CV-2598-P (N.D. Tex. Mar. 27, 1996). Johnson's motions to

supplement the record and for an evidentiary hearing are DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6387

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BRIAN FRANCIS, a/k/a Posse,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CR-93-144, CA-96-2864)

Submitted: July 10, 1997 Decided: July 23, 1997

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Francis, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholas Stephan Altimari, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Francis, Nos. CR-93-144; CA-96-2864 (E.D.

Va. Jan. 15, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
### In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

_________________________ No. 06

- 12

- 00123

- CR

______________________________

IN RE: RALPHAEL SCOTT

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ra l phael Scott has filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this Court. Scott seeks an order compelling the trial court to rule on motions Scott claims to have filed . He states the trial

court has failed to rule on his motion for speedy trial and his motion or motions regarding the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Ac t. 1
The standard for mandamus relief articulated by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals requires the relator to establish that (1) there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged

harm , and (2) only a ministerial act, not a discretionary or judic ial decision, is being sought. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana , 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding)

. Due to the nature of this remedy, it is Scott’s burden to properly request and show e ntitlement to the mandamus relief. Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”)

. Scott has failed in his obligation to provide this Court with a sufficient record establishing his right to mandamus relief. He has provided no copies of the motions he claims to

have filed in the trial court. It is true a trial court has a ministeri al duty to consider and rule on a properly filed and pending motion within a reasonable time. See In re Shaw , 175 S.W.3d 901, 904 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding). However, without copies of the purported

1 See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 51.14 (West 2006 ).3

pleadings, we can determine neither t he merits of Scott’s requested relief nor whether the trial court has had adequate time to rule. We deny Scott’s requested relief.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice

Date Submitted: July 25, 2012 Date Decided: July 26, 2012

Do Not Publish
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Focal Communications (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, M. Jay Sinder,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 1350,
as adopted pursuant to $ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

          (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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ M. Jay Sinder

M. Jay Sinder
Chief Financial Officer
August 12, 2002
##### 



EXHIBIT 24

USF CORPORATION

POWER OF ATTORNEY

The undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints
Thomas E. Bergmann and Richard C. Pagano, or each of them, my
true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, with full power of
substitution, to execute on my behalf, individually and in all
capacities as an officer or director of USF Corporation, an
Annual Report on Form 10-K, and all amendments thereto, for
the year ended December 31, 2003, and to file the same,
with all exhibits thereto and any other documents in connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting
unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority
to do and perform each and every act and thing requisite and
necessary to be done to comply with all requirements of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, as fully and to all intents
and purposes as each might or could do in person, and the
undersigned hereby ratifies and confirms each act that said
attorneys-in-fact and agents may lawfully do or cause to be done
by virtue thereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed
this power of attorney on March 11, 2004.

|                                               |  |                                                     
|---------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|Signature                                      |  | Title                                               
|                                               |  |                                                     
|                                              
|/s/ NEIL A. SPRINGERNeil A. Springer           |  | Non-Executive Chairman of the
    Board of Directors
|                                              
|/s/ ROBERT V. DELANEYRobert V. Delaney         |  | Director                                            
|                                              
|/s/ MORLEY KOFFMANMorley Koffman               |  | Director                                            
|                                              
|/s/ STEPHEN W. LILIENTHALStephen W. Lilienthal |  | Director                                            
|                                              
|/s/ PAUL J. LISKAPaul J. Liska                 |  | Director                                            
|                                              
|/s/ ANTHONY J. PAONIAnthony J. Paoni           |  | Director
#### EMULSIFIED ASPHALT REFINING COMPANY v. HARRIS & HARRIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and MAE E. HARRIS.

(Filed 16 December, 1959.)

Appeal by defendant Mae E. Harris from *Carr, J.,*May Civil- Term, 1959, of Durham.

This -action was instituted by the -plaintiff to recover on a bond executed on 20 December 1956 by Harris & Harris Construction Company as principal and Mae E. Harris *m*surety in the sum of $4,631.67.

The Emulsified Asphalt Refining Company instituted an action in Brunswick County, North Carolina, -against Harris & Harris Construction Company, et al, alleging to toe due to the Emulsified Asphalt Refining Company the -sum of $9,631.67. After the suit was instituted, Harris & Harris Construction Company gave its check to'.the-plaintiff in the .sum of $5,000 and the -above bond was given to ’secure any amount for which the plaintiff might secure judgment over and above the $5,000, -not to exceed $4,631.67. The plaintiff secured ia-'judgment for the difference between the amount 'Claimed in the complaint -and the $6,000 paid thereon in the sum of $4,631.67. Judgment was duly entered and docketed in the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court of Brunswick County, and also in the judgment' docket in the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court of Durham County, in Judgment Book 26 at page 243.

Execution was duly issued against the defendant Harris & Harris Construction Company and returned unsatisfied. The -present action was instituted in Durham County against these defendants, and during the course of the trial tire defendant Harris & Harris Construction Company announced through its counsel in open court that the corporate defendant did not resist judgment on the bond.

The case was -submitted to the jury against the surety only, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against Mae E. Harris in the sum of $4,631.67.

From the judgment entered on the verdict the defendant Mae E. Harris appeals, assigning error.

*Eugene C. Brooks, III, E. C. Brooks, Jr., for plaintiff.*

*Williams & Zimmerman for defendant, appellant.*

PeR Cueiam.

We have carefully considered the exceptions and assignments of error of appellant and no prejudicial error that would justify a new trial has been made to appear.

No error.
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 75th 

Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

-2.00% -4.34% 0.56% 1.23% -1.45% -3.11%

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Retirement Age

Proposed Provision: Shorten the hiatus in the NRA by 5 years, that is, start increasing the NRA from 66 

to 67 for individuals age 62 in 2012, rather than in 2017. Beginning for those age 62 in 2012, increase the 

EEA and NRA for retired worker benefits by 2 months per year until the EEA reaches age 63 and the 

NRA reaches age 67 for those attaining age 62 in 2017. Thereafter, increase both EEA and NRA by 1 

month every 2 years. Finally, increase the earliest eligibility age for disabled widow(er)s and aged 

widow(er)s at the same rate as the increase in the EEA for retired worker benefits.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Cost rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Present law With this provision

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

January 27, 2010

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Cost rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Present law With this provision
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3827 

To increase the amount of loan forgiveness available to teachers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2022 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To increase the amount of loan forgiveness available to 

teachers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Teacher Loan Forgive5 ness Improvement Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCREASED LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR TEACHERS. 

7 Section 428J(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

8 (20 U.S.C. 1078–10(c)) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘$5,000’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘$15,000’’; and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3827 IS

1 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘$17,500’’ 

2 and inserting ‘‘$30,000’’. 

3 SEC. 3. INCREASED LOAN CANCELLATION FOR TEACHERS. 

4 Section 460(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

5 (20 U.S.C. 1087j(c)) is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘$5,000’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘$15,000’’; and 

8 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ‘‘$17,500’’ 

9 and inserting ‘‘$30,000’’. 

10 SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS. 

11 The amendments made by this Act shall apply with 

12 respect to any borrower who completes the fifth complete 

13 school year of teaching required for loan forgiveness under 

14 section 428J(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

15 U.S.C. 1078–10(b)), or for loan cancellation under section 

16 460(b) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1087j(b)), on or after the 

17 date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Abatement Order filed March 18, 2014. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00043-CR

____________

HUNG PHUOC LE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 185th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1371912

ORDER

According to information provided to this court, appellant is not represented 

by counsel in this appeal. Our record contains appellant’s request for appointment 

of counsel and an order from the trial court finding appellant indigent for purposes 

of hiring counsel and preparation of the record. The order does not contain an 

appointment of counsel, however. In addition, no reporter’s record has been filed 

in this case. Walter Johnson, a substitute court reporter, informed this court that 

appellant had not made arrangements for payment for the reporter’s record. See 
Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c)(2)(A). Accordingly, we enter the following order. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 35.3(c).

We ORDER the judge of the 185th District Court to determine whether

appellant is entitled to a free record and appointed counsel on appeal. The judge 

shall appoint appellate counsel for appellant if necessary. The judge may conduct a 

hearing if necessary and shall order the trial clerk to forward a record of any

hearing and a supplemental clerk’s record containing the court’s order regarding 

the appointment of counsel and preparation of the reporter’s record. These records 

shall be filed with the clerk of this court on or before April 18, 2014.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the 

supplemental record is filed in this court. The court will also consider an 

appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may 

reinstate the appeal on its own motion.

PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7549-7550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02853]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: NIGMS Initial Review Group, Training and 
Workforce Development Subcommittee--D.
    Date: March 11, 2016.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

[[Page 7550]]

    Place: Hilton Garden Inn Bethesda, 7301 Waverly Street, 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Rebecca H. Johnson, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General 
Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 
Room 3AN18C, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2771, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#650f0a0d0b160a0b170d250b0c0208164b0b0c0d4b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="305a5f585e435f5e4258705e59575d431e5e59581e575f46">[email protected]</span></a>.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives; 93.859, Biomedical Research and 
Research Training, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 8, 2016.
Melanie J. Gray,
 Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-02853 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>