alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

ALVIN LINCOLN,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee.

______________________ 

2014-7038

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 12-2033, Judge Kenneth B. Kramer.

______________________ 

Before PROST, O’MALLEY and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs responds to the 

court's order directing the parties to show cause why this 

appeal should not be dismissed as untimely. Alvin Lincoln has not responded. 

The Board of Veterans Appeals denied Mr. Lincoln 

entitlement to Department of Veterans Affairs disability

Case: 14-7038 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 04/17/2014
2 LINCOLN v. SHINSEKI

compensation for a right-knee condition in June 2012. 

Mr. Lincoln appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), which 

affirmed the Board’s decision. 

On September 27, 2013, the Veterans Court entered 

its judgment in Mr. Lincoln’s case. Mr. Lincoln’s notice of 

appeal seeking review by this court was received by the 

Veterans Court on December 2, 2013, 66 days after the 

date of judgment. 

To be timely, a notice of appeal must be received by 

the Veterans Court within 60 days of the entry of judgment. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(1). Like appeals from district courts, the 

statutorily prescribed time for filing appeals from the 

Veterans Court to this court is mandatory and jurisdictional. See Wagner v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013); see also Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 

1197, 1204-05 (2011) (indicating jurisdictional restrictions 

on the time for taking an appeal under section 7292(a)). 

Accordingly, even in circumstances in which it would be 

equitable to do so, this court is without authority to waive 

the deadline for filing an appeal to this court from the 

Veterans Court. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 

(2007). 

Because Lincoln’s appeal was filed past the statutory 

deadline for taking an appeal to this court, we must 

dismiss the appeal. 

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

 (1) The appeal is dismissed as untimely. 

 (2) Each side shall bear its own costs. 

 

Case: 14-7038 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 04/17/2014
 LINCOLN v. SHINSEKI 3

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Clerk of Court

s24

Case: 14-7038 Document: 7 Page: 3 Filed: 04/17/2014
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 2404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-403]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-133]


Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power 
Station; Notice of Temporary Closing of Local Public Document Room

    Notice is hereby given that the Humboldt County Library, Eureka, 
California, which serves as the local public document room (LPDR) for 
the Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power 
Station, will be temporarily closed for approximately six weeks due to 
structural damage to the library building from the December 26, 1994, 
earthquake.
    Persons interested in using the LPDR collection during this period 
are asked to contact the NRC LPDR staff for assistance, at (800) 638-
8081, toll-free. Every effort will be made to meet the informational 
needs of patrons.
    Patrons outside the service area of the LPDR may address their 
requests for records to the NRC's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, 
NW. (Lower-Level), Washington, DC 20555, telephone number (202) 634-
3273.
    Questions concerning the NRC's LPDR program or the availability of 
documents pertaining to the Humboldt Bay Nuclear Power Station should 
be addressed to Ms. Jona Souder, LPDR Program Manager, Freedom of 
Information Act/Local Public Document Room Branch, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone number (800) 
638-8081.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3d day of January 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carlton C. Kammerer,
Director, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, 
Office of Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-403 Filed 1-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 32 (Thursday, February 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 8187]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03316]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-893-000]


62SK 8ME LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate 
Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
62SK 8ME LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an 
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is March 1, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c1878493828eafada8afa492b4b1b1aeb3b581a7a4b3a2efa6aeb7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="763033243539181a1f181325030606190402361013041558111900">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: February 10, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-03316 Filed 2-17-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


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

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50260

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Efrain Rey-Acosta, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CR-535-1

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The attorney appointed to represent Efrain Rey-Acosta has moved for 

leave to withdraw and has filed briefsin accordance with Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Rey-Acosta has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 22, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50260 Document: 00516367083 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/22/2022
No. 21-50260

2

the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and 

the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 21-50260 Document: 00516367083 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/22/2022
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

November 3, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00624

- CV

CITY OF LAREDO and City of Laredo Municipal Civil Service, Appellants

v.

Tony H. MORENO

, Appellee

From the 49th Judicial District Court

, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021

- CVK

- 001767

- D1 Honorable Jose A. Lopez , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On November 1, 2022, this court received appellant s’ brief . The brief violates Rule 38 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in that the statement of facts and the argument do not contain any citations to the record

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.1(g), (i). It is therefore ORDERED that the brief filed by appellant s is STRICKE N from our record. It is further ORDERED that appellant s must file an amended brief , in compliance with Rule 38.1 that includes appropriate citations to the record. It is further ORDERED that appellant’s amended brief is due on November 21 , 2022 , or this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.9, 42.3.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Just ice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 3rd day of November, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       1
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                6
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,247
<OTHER-SE>                                    (13,252)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         1
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,564
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,564)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,564)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,564)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.58)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.58)


</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-13-00227-CV

Elizabeth GUPTA,

Appellant

v.

MIDLAND FUNDING LLC,

Appellee

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CVF000115 D3

Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of 

appeal are assessed against appellant.

SIGNED June 19, 2013.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2583-2584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-499]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-125-000]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

January 4, 1995.
    Take notice that on December 21, 1994, Tennessee Gas Pipeline 
Company (Tennessee), P.O. Box 2511, Houston, Texas 77252, filed in 
Docket No. CP95-125-000, a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and 
157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 
CFR 157.205 and 157.212) for authorization to establish a delivery 
point by reversing an existing receipt meter for its existing customer, 
Mississippi Valley Gas Company (Mississippi Valley), under Tennessee's 
blanket certificate issued to Tennessee in Docket No. CP82-413-000 
pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set 
forth in the request that is on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    Tennessee proposes to reverse its check valve located in Lowndes 
County, Mississippi and install electronic gas measurement (E.G.M.). 
Mississippi Valley proposes to reverse its existing Meter No. 1-1758 
into a delivery facility. Tennessee will install, own, operate and 
maintain the E.G.M. and will operate the measurement facilities. 
Mississippi Valley will own and maintain the measurement facilities. 
The estimated cost for the project is $20,100, 100% reimbursible to 
Tennessee.
    Tennessee states that the total quantities to be delivered for 
Mississippi Valley will not exceed the total quantities authorized. 
Tennessee asserts that the establishment of the proposed delivery meter 
is not prohibited by Tennessee's tariff and that it has sufficient 
capacity to accomplish the deliveries at the proposed new delivery 
meter without detriment or disadvantage to any of Tennessee's other 
customers.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR [[Page 2584]] 385.214) 
a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 
157.205 of the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a 
protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed 
therefor, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized 
effective the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a 
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time 
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as 
an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural 
Gas Act.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-499 Filed 1-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<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 Forever Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 (the "Report"),
I, Michael R. Butler, Chief Financial 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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 results of operations of the Company.


                         /s/ Michael R. Butler
                         ----------------------------------------------------
                         Chief Financial Officer of Forever Enterprises, Inc.
                         May 15, 2003


         This certificate accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act or 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.10.1

AMENDMENT TO THE
MERISTAR HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.
EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN

Pursuant to the approval by the Board of Directors of MeriStar Hotels &
Resorts, Inc. (the Company) and the Companys shareholders at the Companys
2002 Annual Meeting, the MeriStar Hotels & Resorts, Inc. Employee Stock
Purchase Plan (the Plan) is amended, effective August 1, 2002, as follows:



| | 1. |  | The Plan shall now be called the Interstate Hotels & Resorts,
Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan and every place that the word
MeriStar is used in the Plan shall be replaced by the word
Interstate.                                                                    
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2. |  | The following paragraph (c) shall be added to Section 12.4 of
the Plan:                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|
| |    |  | (c) No adjustment to the maximum number of shares that may be
purchased under the Plan shall be made in respect of any reverse
stock split approved at the Companys 2002 Annual Meeting of
stockholders that is effected by the Company in accordance with
such approval.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc. has caused this amendment
to the Plan to be duly executed in its corporate name this 1st day of August,
2002.

INTERSTATE HOTELS & RESORTS, INC______________________________
Christopher L. Bennett
Senior Vice President,
General Counsel and Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     1
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,081
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                4
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,247
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,830
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,081
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,970
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,970)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,970)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,970)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.59)
        

</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

March 18, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00844

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.C.,

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Duval County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 18

- 53 The Honorable Selina Nava Mireles, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant appeals the trial court’s termination of his parental rights. Appellant’s court

appointed attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. We have held that in parental

termination appeals, a pro cedure akin to Anders is necessary to best protect the statutory right to counsel on appeal, to provide a procedural mechanism for counsel to fulfill his ethical obligations, to assist the court in deciding appeals, and to provide consistent procedures for all indigent litigants. In re R.R. , No. 04

- 03

- 00096

- CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at *4 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.); see In re P.M. , 520 S.W.3d 24, 27 n.10 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam) (applying Anders procedures in appeal from order terminating parental ri ghts). In compliance with the procedure set out in Anders , appellant’s attorney has shown that he sent a letter to appellant, which explained his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re A.L.H. , No. 04

- 18

- 00153

- CV, 2018 WL 3861695, at *2 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Aug. 15, 2018, no pet.); In re R.R. , 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. In the letter to appellant, counsel stated that he had enclosed copies of the brief. See Kelly , 436 S.W.3d at 313 ; In re A.L.H. , 2018 WL 3861695, at *2; In re R.R. , 2003 WL 21157944, at *4.

Counsel has also advised appellant that if he wished to review the appellate record, he must file a motion in this court. Counsel also enclosed a form motion for this purpose. S ee Kelly

, 436 S.W.3d at 313; In re A.L.H.

, 2018 WL 3861695, at *2; In re R.R. , 2003 WL 21157944, at *4. If appellant wishes to review the appellate record, he must file a motion in this court within ten days of the date of this order.

Counsel has also fi led a motion for extension of time on behalf of appellant. The motion is GRANTED. If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we ORDER that he do so on or before April 7, 2020 . If appellant files a pro se brief, appellee may file a responsive brief no later than twenty days after the date appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court._________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affix ed the seal of the said court on this 18th day of March, 2020

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court