alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 15

- 00337

- CR

IN RE Abelardo G. GONZALEZ

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 5, 2015

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED AS MOOT

On June 2, 2015, relator Abelardo G. Gonzalez filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus,

complaining of his inability to obtain a ruling on his second motion to recuse, filed on March 3,

2015. However, on July 30, 2015

, this court received a copy of an Order Denying Motion to

Recuse, signed by the Presiding Judge of the Fourth Administrative Judicial Region of Texas on

July 16, 2015. Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P . 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No s . 2008CRR000657 D1, 2008CRR000662 D1, 2008CRR000665 D1, styled

The State of Texas v. Abelardo Gerardo Gonzalez , pending in the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas,

the Honorable Jose A. Lopez presiding.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

572 

CA 16-01895 

PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN CITY OF 

BUFFALO, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

AND MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BRAND-ON SERVICES, INC., RESPONDENT. 

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

MORTON H. WITTLIN, INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

FREID AND KLAWON, WILLIAMSVILLE (ADAM B. CONNERS OF COUNSEL), FOR

INTERVENOR-PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

TIMOTHY A. BALL, CORPORATION COUNSEL, BUFFALO (DAVID M. LEE OF

COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court,

Erie County (Timothy J. Walker, A.J.), entered January 11, 2016. The

judgment granted petitioner’s motion to dismiss the complaint of

intervenor-plaintiff Morton H. Wittlin. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied,

and the complaint is reinstated. 

Memorandum: Intervenor-plaintiff Morton H. Wittlin commenced

this action against petitioner, the City of Buffalo (City), seeking a

declaration that he has a valid security interest in certain floating

docks in the Erie Basin Marina. The City moved to dismiss the

complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause

of action and for a declaration that ownership of the floating docks

is free and clear of any right or interest possessed by Wittlin. 

Supreme Court granted the City’s motion, dismissed the complaint, and

made the declaration sought by the City.

As a preliminary matter, we note that because this is a

declaratory judgment action, the court erred in dismissing the

complaint (see Tumminello v Tumminello, 204 AD2d 1067, 1067; see

generally Maurizzio v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 73 NY2d 951, 954). In

any event, we conclude that the court erred in granting the

substantive relief sought by the City. Contrary to the City’s view,

its evidentiary submissions do not conclusively establish that the

City owned the docks in 2009 and that Wittlin does not have a valid

security interest in the docks (see Donald Braasch Constr. Inc. v

State Ins. Fund, 98 AD3d 1302, 1302-1304; Pittsford Plaza Co. LP v TLC
-2- 572 

CA 16-01895 

W. LLC, 45 AD3d 1272, 1273-1274; see generally Fillman v Axel, 63 AD2d

876, 876).

Entered: May 5, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-21-00463-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF M.M., J.M.M., and L.A.M., Children

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-PA-00974

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s order of termination is 

AFFIRMED. No costs of appeal are assessed due to appellant’s indigence.

SIGNED April 13, 2022.

_____________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3475

Academy, Ltd:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<PAGE>

Exhibit 32

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Each of the undersigned of Sovran Acquisition Limited Partnership (the "Operating Partnership") does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|1) | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Operating Partnership for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Operating Partnership.                                                                

Dated:          August 8, 2006

| | / S / Robert J. Attea                          Robert J. Attea
Chairman of the Board
Chief Executive Officer of Sovran Holdings, Inc., the Sole General Partner of the Operating Partnership
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | / S / David L. Rogers                        David L. Rogers
Chief Financial Officer of Sovran Holdings, Inc., the Sole General Partner of the Operating Partnership                        















- 1 -
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16681]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7873]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Advisory Panel for Physiology and Behavior

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Advisory Panel for Physiology and Behavior (#1160).
    Date and Time: April 18, and 19, 1995, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
    Place: Room 380, National Science Foundation, 420 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia.
    Type of Meeting: Part-Open.
    Contact Person: Dr. Machi F. Dilworth, Program Director, 
Integrative Plant Biology, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia, 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1422.
    Minutes: May be obtained from the contact person listed above.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Integrative Plant Biology 
proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Open Session: April 18, 1995, 1:30 to 2:30 pm--To discuss 
research trends and opportunities in Integrative Plant Biology.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: March 27, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-7873 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
```
## C

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

# FILED AUG 2 5 2020 DA 19-0316 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiffand Appellee, v. FRANKLIN JOHN BECKER,

Defendantand Appellant. Clerk ORDER

Counsel for Appellant Franklin John Becker filed a motion and briefasking to be allowed to withdraw from this appeal on grounds that counsel has been unable to find any nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal, pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA,and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). This Court granted Becker time to respond,butnoresponse was filed. The Court has now independently examined the record pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA,and Anders. We conclude no arguments with potential legal merit can be raised in Becker's appeal in this case. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Orderto all counsel ofrecord and to Becker personally. DATED this —

day ofAugust,2020. ChiefJustice 08/25/2020
Case Number: DA 19-0316

# .z 2-1-4,__

e. Justices
FIRST SUPPLEMENT DATED JANUARY 17, 2001 TO THE

                      CONFIDENTIAL ASSIGNMENT SUMMARY DATED

                               DECEMBER 7, 2000

                 TEXAS LITHOTRIPSY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VII, L.P.

                  Lithotripters,  Inc., a North Carolina corporation  ("Litho"),
by  this  First  Supplement  hereby  amends  and  supplements  its  Confidential
Assignment  Summary dated  December 7, 2000 (the  "Summary").  Persons who have
subscribed  for or are  considering  an  investment  in the Units offered by the
Summary should carefully review this First Supplement.

Extension of the Offering

                  Pursuant to the  authority  given to Litho in the Summary,  it
hereby elects to extend the offering termination date to February 20, 2001 (or
earlier in the  discretion  of  Litho,  upon the sale of all  Units as  provided
in the Summary).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4387

ECM Industries LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_04.15.19.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

PERFECT SURGICAL TEC HNIQUES, INC., Appellant

v.

OLYMPUS AMERICA, INC., OLYMP US MEDICAL SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Appellees

______________________

2015

- 2045

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2014

- 00241.

______________________

J UDGMENT

______________________

R OBERT E. F REITAS , Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP, Redwood City, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by K AYLA A NN O DOM

, D ANIEL J. W EINBERG

.

D EBORAH E. F ISHMAN , Kaye Scholer LLP, Palo Alto, CA, argued for appellees. Also represented by M ARISA A RMANINO W ILLIAMS

, K ATIE J EANNINE L EWIS S COTT

.

______________________T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (M OORE

, S CHALL

, and O’M ALLEY

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

June 9, 2016 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7178]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; EHC Technologies Consortium--Electrical 
Energy--Source Alternatives

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 27, 1994, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Southwest Research 
Institute (``SwRI'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in the membership of the ``EHC Technologies Consortium--
Electrical Energy-Source Alternatives''. The notifications were filed 
for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery 
of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, General Motors Corporation, Delco-Remy 
Division, Anderson, IN; Nissan Research & Development, Inc., Farmington 
Hills, MI; and Volvo Car Corporation, Goteborg, SWEDEN have become new 
members of the project.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activities of the venture. Membership in the group research project 
remains open, and SwRI intends to file additional written notifications 
disclosing all changes in membership.
    On October 18, 1993, SwRI filed its original notification pursuant 
to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on 
January 14, 1994 (59 FR 2438-2439).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-7178 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-2243

Dial Manufacturing Inc: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.pdf. 

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Elise Rodriguez, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 903 C.D. 2016

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

NOW, November 8, 2017

, upon consideration of petitioner’s

application for re argument

, t he application is denied.

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

President Judge
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4341 

To require the Government Accountability Office to issue a report on 

nonprofit pharmaceutical organizations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2022 

Ms. ROSEN (for herself and Mr. ROMNEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To require the Government Accountability Office to issue 

a report on nonprofit pharmaceutical organizations. 

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 ‘‘Advancing Affordable 

5 Medicines for Families Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. GAO REPORT ON NONPROFIT PHARMACEUTICAL 

7 ORGANIZATIONS. 

8 The Comptroller General of the United States shall 

9 submit a report to Congress on the following: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 4341 IS

1 (1) The potential impact of nonprofit pharma2 ceutical organizations on the availability and cost of 

3 drugs, including on drug shortages, consumer costs, 

4 and costs to Federal programs. 

5 (2) The potential of nonprofit pharmaceutical 

6 organizations to accelerate development of new 

7 drugs, generic drugs, new biological products, bio8 similar biological products, cell-based therapies, and 

9 devices. 

10 (3) Existing barriers to the success of nonprofit 

11 pharmaceutical organizations, including the ability of 

12 such organizations to obtain tax-exempt status, ac13 cess to capital, and access to markets. 

14 (4) Potential actions by Congress that would 

15 allow nonprofit pharmaceutical organizations to de16 liver benefits to the pharmaceutical market. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15

- 0619 Filed November 23, 2016

OLIVER LITT JR. , Applicant

- Appellant,

vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark R. Lawson , Judge.

An applicant appeals the district court’s denial of his application for postconviction relief alleging his pri or attorneys were ineffective. AFFIRMED.

Leah D. Patton , Walcott , for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Jean C. Pettinger , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Scott, S.J. *

* Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2015).2

SCOTT, Senior Judge. Oliver Litt was convicted , following a jury trial , of murder in the first degree. On direct appeal, his conviction was affirmed by this court. State v. Litt , No. 09

- 0524 , 2010 WL 2383514 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. June 16, 2010). The facts of the underlying crime are sufficiently outline d in our prior decision and need not be repeated here. See i d . at *1

- 2. Following the appeal, Litt filed an application for postconviction relief (PCR). Litt’s PCR application came on for a hearing at the district court on March 13, 2015. The district court issued a ruling denying the application , and Litt now appeals that denial

. On appeal, Litt ra ises the same claims he made to the district court

— that his attorneys were ineffective for : (1) failing to object to the State’s admission of his police interview into evidence where he discussed rumors his daughter had been sexually assaulted by the deced ent, (2) not objecting to an incorrect statement of the law in the marshalling instruction for willful injury, (3) not objecting to a superfluous jury instruction on aiding and abetting, (4) failing to object to what he believes was improper vouching for t he credibility of witnesses by the prosecutor during closing arguments , and (5) not challenging on appeal
the deni al of his motion for a mistrial. He claims the cumulative effect of all of
counsel s ’ errors resulted in prejudice

. Having reviewed the bri efs and the record on appeal, we affirm the district court’s decision pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(d) and (e) because the district court thoroughly and correctly analyzed all issues raised on appeal and a full opinion from this court would not augm ent or clarify existing case law.
AFFIRMED.