alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## THE STATE OF TEXAS MANDATE
TO THE 307TH DISTRIC T COURT OF GREGG COU NTY, GREETINGS: Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 29th day of July, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:
In the Interest of K.D., a Minor Child No. 06

- 15

- 00012

- CV
Trial Court No. 2014

- 70

- DR
As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment of the court below

. We affirm that part of the trial court’s judgment finding that Mother’s Affidavit of Relinquishment is valid and enforceable as between the parties. W e reverse that portion of the trial court’s judgment finding that termination of Mother’s parental rights is in K.D.’s best interest and remand the case to the trial court for a new trial on whether termination is in K.D.’s best interest. We not e that the appellant has adequately indicated her inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs. We further note that the payment of costs is waived pursuant to Section 40.062 of the Texas Human Resources Code. See T EX
. H UM
. R E S

. C ODE A NN
. § 40.062 (West 2013). WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed. WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 14th day of October , A.D. 2015

.
DEBRA K. AUTREY , Clerk
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.

LEONARD ESHAYA , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 21

- 0584 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 2014

- 118120

- 001 The Honorable Ronda R. Fisk , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Amanda M. Parker Counsel for Respondent

Brown & Little PLC , Chandler By Matthew O. Brown C ounsel for Petitioner FILED 5-31-2022STATE v. ESH AYA Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey, Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge D. Steven Williams delivered the decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Leonard Eshaya seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief

. This is petitioner’s first petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post

- co nviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz

. 537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
#### STATE of Missouri (Respondent), v. Timothy L. NEWTON (Appellant). Timothy L. NEWTON (Appellant), v. STATE of Missouri (Respondent).

Nos. WD 43899, 45945.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 16, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 27, 1993.

Application to Transfer Denied June 29, 1993.

Melinda Kay Pendergraph, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before KENNEDY, P.J., and BERREY and SPINDEN, JJ.

*470PER CURIAM

ORDER

Defendant appeals from his conviction for robbery in the first degree, section 569.-020 RSMo 1986, and the denial of his post-conviction motion to vacate the conviction and sentence of seventeen years imprisonment, Rule 29.15 V.A.M.R.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-30465

Summary Calendar

 

GOLITH ADAMS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHRISTIAN, Lieutenant; Mark Foster; KELLY WARD; RICHARD

STALDER,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-386

- - - - - - - - - -

Janury 22, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Golith Adams, Jr., Louisiana prisoner # 100240, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his in forma pauperis (IFP) civil

rights suit (under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) with prejudice as frivolous

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Adams contends that the

conditions of his confinement in isolation constituted cruel and

unusual punishment and imposed atypical and significant hardship

on him. We have reviewed the record and Adams’ brief and AFFIRM
No. 97-30465

-2-

the district court’s judgment for essentially the same reasons

adopted by the district court. Adams v. Christian, No. 97-CV-386

(W.D. La. Mar. 20, 1997, and Apr. 15, 1997).

AFFIRMED.
Dismissal and Opinion Filed July 1, 2013 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01474-CV 

DONAVAN HOWARD, Appellant 

V. 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. cc-12-03177-C 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By letter dated April 19, 2013 we informed 

appellant that the County Clerk had notified the Court that the clerk’s record had not been filed 

because appellant had not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We 

directed appellant to file written verification that he had paid for or made arrangements to pay for 

the clerk’s record or that he had been found entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We 

cautioned appellant that if he did not file the required documentation within ten days, we might 

dismiss the appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not provided the required 

documentation or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the clerk’s 

record. 

 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). 

121474F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

DONAVAN HOWARD, Appellant 

No. 05-12-01474-CV V. 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 

TRUST COMPANY, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 3, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. cc-12-03177-C. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis participating. 

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

 It is ORDERED that appellee THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST 

COMPANY recover its costs of this appeal from appellant DONAVAN HOWARD. 

Judgment entered July 1, 2013 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 7, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1561

Illinois Tool Works: 

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

_05.09.19.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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 62 (Friday, March 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7974]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
(I.D. 032495C)


Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; Meeting

AGENCY:: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and its Demersal 
Species Committee and Habitat Committee will hold public meetings on 
April 18-20, 1995, at the Holiday Inn, 39th and Oceanfront, Virginia 
Beach, VA 23451; telephone: (804) 428-1711. On April 18, the Demersal 
Species Committee will meet from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. On April 19, 
the Council will meet from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The Habitat 
Committee will meet from 1:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. On April 20, the 
Council will meet from 8:00 a.m. until approximately 12:00 p.m.
    The following topics may be discussed:
    1. Action on the scoping process for Amendment 7 to the Summer 
Flounder Fishery Management Plan.
    2. Development of a Council policy on artificial reefs.
    3. Review of the NMFS management program for striped bass.
    4. Other fishery management matters.
    The Council meetings may be revised, lengthened or shortened based 
on the progress of the meeting. The Council may go into closed session 
to discuss personnel or national security matters.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David R. Keifer, Executive Director, 
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 300 S. New Street, Dover, DE 
19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting is physically accessible to 
people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or 
other auxiliary aids should be directed to Joanna Davis on (302) 674-
2331 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: March 27, 1995.
David S. Crestin,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-7974 Filed 3-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
#### Randy GRIFFIN, Employee/Appellant, v. TALL-WALL FOUNDATION CO., Employer/Respondent, and Secura Insurance, Insurer/Respondent.

No. 68802.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 11, 1996.

Andrew L. Mandel, St. Louis, for appellant.

John J. Johnson, Jr., Brown & James, P.C., St. Louis, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and GRIMM, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Employee appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying his claim for workers’ compensation. He alleges the Commission erred when it found his injuries (1) did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, and (2) were not medically causally related to events at work.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4945 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 4945

 To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to raise public 
     awareness for skilled trade programs, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 26, 2023

 Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania (for himself, Ms. Bonamici, Mr. Finstad, 
 and Mr. Kilmer) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
              the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act to raise public 
     awareness for skilled trade programs, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Creating Opportunities to Thrive and 
Advance Act'' or the ``COTA Act''.

SEC. 2. CAREER GUIDANCE AND PUBLIC AWARENESS FOR SKILLED TRADE 
              PROGRAMS.

    Section 223(a)(2) of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act 
(29 U.S.C. 3303(a)(2)) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraph (M) as subparagraph (O); 
        and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (L) the following:
                    ``(M) Providing guidance on career options in high-
                skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry sectors or 
                occupations in current or emerging professions 
                (including skilled trades).
                    ``(N) Raising public awareness and conducting 
                public service announcements about career and technical 
                education programs and community-based organizations, 
                including through social media campaigns and other 
                endeavors, focused on programs that prepare students 
                for high-skill, high-wage, or in-demand industry 
                sectors or occupations in current or emerging 
                professions (including skilled trades).''.
                                 <all>
```
#### A. C. GODWIN v. HENRY E. COOPER.

(Filed 19 March, 1947.)

Appeal by defendant from *Grady, Emergency Judge,*at October Term, 1946, of HabNett.

Affirmed.

*J. A. West and J. R. Young for plaintiff.*

*Mach M. Jernigan and H. Paul Strickland for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff declared on- two cheeks issued by defendant and delivered to plaintiff in payment for a stock of goods and the assignment of a written lease on the store building in which the goods were housed. Defendant admitted giving the checks, but alleged as an affirmative defense that the lease was invalid, and that consequently there was a failure of consideration. However, no defects appear on the face of the lease, nor are any facts alleged in the answer which would render the lease invalid. The court below entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the pleadings, and on the record before us that ruling must be upheld and the judgment

Affirmed.
#### DUGAL LOGGING, INC. *v.*ARKANSAS PULPWOOD COMPANY, INC., *et al.*

98-973

983 S.W.2d 126

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered December 21, 1998

*547*Vickery & Landers, PLLC,*by: *Michael R. Landers;*and *Burbank, Dodson & McDonald,*by: *Gary D. McDonald,*for appellants.

*Harrell & Lindsey, P.A.,*by: *Paul E. Lindsey,*for appellees.

Per Curiam.

On October 23, 1998, the court of appeals certified this matter to this court because it found that the case presented a question pertaining to interpretation of a rule. After reviewing the briefs filed by the parties, we have determined certification is proper on the issue of whether a motion to extend the time for filing the record was properly granted. Because determination of this issue involves the interpretation and application of Ark. R. App. P. — Civ. 5 and may result in dismissal of the appeal as requested by several of the appellants, we accept certification on this question only.
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed

October 11 , 20 2 2

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00 656

- CV

IN RE STEVEN HOTZE M.D. , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 2 95 th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2021

- 18494



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 9 , 2022 , relator Steven Hotze M.D. filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App.

P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Donna Roth
, presiding judge of the 2 95 th District Court of Harris County
, to withdraw an order granting a motion to compel net worth discovery from Steven Hotze and issue a mandate upholding his objections to the discovery request

.2

Relator ha s not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator ’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Bourliot, Zimmerer, and Poissant.
#### Glen BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56191.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 5, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 11, 1990.

*429Dorothy Mae Hirzy, Sp. Public Defender, James S. McKay, St. Louis, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant, Glen Brown, appeals from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. The motion court dismissed movant’s motion as untimely because it was not filed before June 30, 1988. Rule 29.15(m). The time limits as to when a Rule 29.15 motion must be filed are constitutional. *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 696[3] (Mo.banc 1989). The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(j). An extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose. We affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. E Z E Q U I E L R O D R I G U E Z , J r ., D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 11- 50354 D. C. No . 3 : 1 0 - c r - 0 3 6 2 3 - J LS ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J a ni s L . S a m m a rt i no, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 17, 2012 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , P A E Z , an d B E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E ze qu i el R od ri gu ez , Jr . , appeal s f rom the 12 0-m on th sent ence i m po se d f o llo w in g h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n f o rp o s s e s s io n o f

c o c a in e w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e a nd a i di ng a nd abe tt i ng, i n vi ol a t i on of 21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) a nd 18



# FI LED APR20 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 50354 2 U . S. C. § 2 . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d w e a f f i rm. T he gove rnm e ntc ont e nds tha tthi s appe a l s houl d be di s m i s s e d i n l i ghtof the appe a l w a i ve rs e tf

orth i n R odr i gue z ’ s pl e aa gr e e m e nt . W e de c l i ne t o r e a c h the i ss ue of w hether thi s app ea l fa l l s w i thi n the sc op e of the appeal w ai ver, and i nst ea d a f f irm o n th e m e r its . Se e U n ite d S ta te s v . J

a c o b o Ca s tillo , 4 9 6 F .3 d 9 4 7 , 9 5 7 ( 9 th C i r. 20 07 ) ( en banc). R od ri gu ez cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourterre d b y denyi ng hi m re l i ef un der the s a f e ty va l ve pr ovi s i on of

18 U . S . C . § 3553( f

) a nd U . S . S . G . § 5C 1. 2. T he d i stri ctco u rt ’ s fi n d i n g th atR o d ri g u ez w as i n el i g i b l e fo r safety v al v e rel i ef b ecau se he di d notgi ve the gove rnm e nta l l of the i nf orm a t i on tha the ha d r e ga r di ng the o f f e n s e w a s n o t c le a r ly e rr o n e o u s . See U ni ted Stat es v. A lba -Flores , 577 F . 3d 11 04 , 11 07 (9th C i r. 20 09 ). AF F I RME D.
H. R. 5103 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four 

An Act 

To require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to approve or 

deny spend plans within a certain amount of time, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fishery Improvement to Streamline untimely regulatory Hurdles post Emergency Situation Act’’ 

or the ‘‘FISHES Act’’. 

SEC. 2. SPEND PLANS. 

Section 312(a)(6) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1861a(a)(6)) is amended— 

(1) in subparagraph (D), to read as follows: 

‘‘(D) SPEND PLANS.— 

‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—To receive an allocation from 

funds available under paragraph (9), a requester with 

an affirmative fishery resource disaster determination 

shall submit a spend plan to the Secretary, not more 

than 120 days after receiving notification that funds 

are available, that shall include the following information, if applicable: 

‘‘(I) Objectives and outcomes, with an 

emphasis on addressing the factors contributing 

to the fishery resource disaster and minimizing 

future uninsured losses, if applicable. 

‘‘(II) Statement of work. 

‘‘(III) Budget details. 

‘‘(ii) REVIEW.— 

‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall review 

a spend plan submitted under clause (i) to determine if it is complete and provide notice within 

10 days. 

‘‘(II) INCOMPLETE SPEND PLAN.—If the Secretary determines that a spend plan submitted 

under clause (i) is not complete, when providing 

the notice required by subclause (I), the Secretary 

shall provide a detailed description of the information that is necessary for the spend plan to be 

determined complete.’’; and 

(2) in subparagraph (F)(i), to read as follows: 

‘‘(i) AVAILABILITY.— 
H. R. 5103—2 

‘‘(I) TIMELINE.—Funds shall be made available 

to grantees not later than 90 days after the date 

the Secretary receives a complete spend plan. 

‘‘(II) REVIEW OF COMPLETED SPEND PLAN AND

APPORTIONMENT OF FUNDS.—If so requested, the 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

may review a completed spend plan concurrently 

with the Secretary. The Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget may not delay the 

timeline described in subclause (I).’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.