alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re MARRIAGE OF Douglas F. ADAMS and Karen J. Adams. Douglas F. ADAMS, Petitioner/Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. Karen J. ADAMS, Respondent/Respondent/Cross-Appellant.

Nos. 65202, 65278.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

June 6, 1995.

Rehearing Denied July 24, 1995.

W. Morris Taylor, William K. Meehan, W. Morris Taylor, P.C., St. Louis, for appellant/respondent.

Allan H. Zerman, Cary J. Mogerman, Zer-man & Mogerman, Clayton, for respondent/appellant.

Before CRANE, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Both parties appeal from the trial court’s judgment in a dissolution case. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).

An opinion reciting the detañed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

*327The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

December 23, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00783-CV

IN RE KEVAN CASEY, JINSUN LLC, AND FAR EAST STRATEGIES 

LLC, Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

113th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-54501

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 1, 2014, relators, Kevan Casey, Jinsun LLC, and Far East 

Strategies LLC, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t 

Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this 

Court to compel the Honorable Michael Landrum, presiding judge of the 113th 

District Court of Harris County, to set aside his September 15, 2014 order denying 
2

their motion to dismiss what they state is a shareholder derivative lawsuit filed by 

real party in interest, Khaled Alattar, for lack of standing.

Relators have not established their entitlement to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. We also lift our 

stay issued on October 3, 2014.

 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices McCally, Brown, and Wise.
*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 99-10520

Summary Calendar

__________________

DAVID B. OPENSHAW,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

EEX CORPORATION; ET AL.,

Defendants,

EEX CORPORATION; ENSERCH EXPLORATION, INC.,

Severance Pay Plan; JANICE HARTRICK,

Individually and as Administrator and 

Fiduciary of the Severance Plan

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:98-CV-1193-H)

_________________________________________________________________

January 27, 2000

Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Solely at issue is David B. Openshaw’s challenge to the denial

of a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment.

Openshaw filed this action to recover severance benefits; but

on 15 January 1999, an adverse summary judgment dismissed his

action on the merits. Openshaw filed a series of post-judgment

motions, including the Rule 60(b) motion at issue, all of which
- 2 -

were denied. On 30 April 1999, after the Rule 60(b) denial,

Openshaw appealed it and the summary judgment.

In our court, the employer moved to dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction, based on the notice of appeal being untimely. Our

court granted the motion as to the summary judgment, but denied it

concerning the Rule 60(b) denial.

Whether “to grant ... relief under Rule 60(b) lies within the

sound discretion of the district court and will be reversed only

for abuse of that discretion”. Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d

983, 995 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc). For the requisite abuse of

discretion, Openshaw contends that the district court made

fundamental errors of law in granting summary judgment by

determining the wrong standard for reviewing the severance plan

administrator’s actions; holding that there was no conflict of

interest on the part of the severance plan administrator; and

determining that Openshaw was not retaliated against under § 510 of

ERISA. 

Openshaw’s contentions do not meet the usual criteria of

mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, as listed in

Rule 60(b). Nor under the fundamental misconception of the

governing law basis, read into Rule 60(b), is there any ground for

relief.

Openshaw’s grounds for challenging the Rule 60(b) denial

appear to be no more than camouflage for his forfeited appeal from

the summary judgment. But, as he recognizes, Rule 60(b) is not a

substitute for a timely appeal.
- 3 -

AFFIRMED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6978

Omron Management Center of America, Inc:

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 32.1
                            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 OC Financial, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Diane M. Gregg,
President, and Chief Executive Officer and I, Amanda E. Thomas, 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, that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company.


Date: February 25, 2008

/s/ Diane M. Gregg
------------------
Diane M. Gregg
President and Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Amanda E. Thomas
--------------------
Amanda E. Thomas
Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Michael OVERTURF, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 62218.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 9, 1993.

Gary E. Brotherton, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for defendant-appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Michael Overturf, appeals from a judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, for tampering in the first degree. He was sentenced as a prior and persistent offender to imprisonment for twelve years.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
Supreme Court ofthe United States

Office ofthe Clerk

Washington, DC 20543-0001

Scott S. Harris

Clerk of the Court

December 2, 2015 (202)479.3011

Clerk

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

P.O. Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin, TX 78711

Re: Roberto Gonzalez De La Cruz

v. Texas

No. 15-7207

(Your No. WR-76,781-01)

Dear Clerk:

The petition for a writ of certiorari in the above entitled case was filed on

November 24, 2015 and placed on the docket December 2, 2015 as No. 15-7207.

Sincerely,

Scott S. Harris, Clerk

by

Melissa i BJalock

Case Analyst

Abe,Acos»,C\etk
DISMISS; Opinion issued April 3 , 2013 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 12

- 01268

- CV

SYLVIA JACKSON , Appellant

V.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 12

- 004678

- E

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright, and Justices Lang

- Miers and Lewis Opinion by Chief Justice Wright

On February 18, 2013, appellant filed a notice of nonsuit. In her notice she states she is

nonsuiting all of her claims on appeal. We treat appellant’s notice of nonsuit as a motion to

dismiss the appeal and GRANT appellant’s motion. We DISMISS this appeal. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 42.1(a).

121268F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/

CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

SYLVIA JACKSON, Appellant

No. 05

- 12

- 01268

- CV V.

WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 12

- 004678

- E. 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 WELLS FARGO BANK, NA recover its costs of this appeal from appellant SYLVIA JACKSON.

Judgment entered April 3 , 2013.

/Carolyn Wright/

CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10734]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[AK-962-1410-00-P]


Notice for Publication; F-14942-A; Alaska Native Claims Selection

    In accordance with Departmental regulation 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice 
is hereby given that a decision to issue conveyance under the 
provisions of Section 14(a) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
of December 18, 1971, 43 U.S.C. 1601, 1613(a), will be issued to MTNT, 
Ltd. for approximately 1,157 acres. The lands involved are in the 
vicinity of Takotna, Alaska within T. 33 N., R. 38 W., Seward Meridian, 
Alaska.
    A notice of the decision will be published once a week, for four 
(4) consecutive weeks, in the Anchorage Daily News. Copies of the 
decision may be obtained by contacting the Alaska State Office of the 
Bureau of Land Management, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, 
Alaska 99513-7599 ((907) 271-5960).
    Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected 
by the decision, an agency of the Federal government or regional 
corporation, shall have until May 31, 1996, to file an appeal. However, 
parties receiving service by certified mail shall have 30 days from the 
date of receipt to file an appeal. Appeals must be filed in the Bureau 
of Land Management at the address identified above, where the 
requirements for filing an appeal may be obtained. Parties who do not 
file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR Part 4, 
Subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights.
Carolyn A. Bailey,
Land Law Examiner, ANCSA Team, Branch of 962 Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 96-10734 Filed 4-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Louise Smith, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Clabby, J.), rendered May 15, 1989, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal facilitation in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Fiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 81 (Thursday, April 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10197]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Meeting of 
the Sickle Cell Disease Advisory Committee

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the 
meeting of the Sickle Cell Disease Advisory Committee, National Heart, 
Lung, and Blood Institute, June 7, 1996. The meeting will be held at 
the National Institutes of Health, Two Rockledge Center, Conference 
Room 9A1-A2, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
    The entire meeting will be open to the public from 9:00 a.m. to 
adjournment, to discuss recommendations on the implementation and 
evaluation of the Sickle Cell Disease Program. Attendance by the public 
will be limited to space available.
    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as 
sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should 
contact the Executive Secretary in advance of the meeting.
    Dr. Clarice D. Reid, Executive Secretary, Sickle Cell Disease 
Advisory Committee, Division of Blood Diseases and Resources, NHLBI, 
Two Rockledge Center, Suite 10160, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892, (301) 435-0080, will furnish substantive program 
information, a summary of the meeting, and a roster of the committee 
members.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.839, Blood 
Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health)

    Dated: April 22, 1996.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 96-10197 Filed 4-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 71 (Thursday, April 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9073]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP94-343-007]


NorAm Gas Transmission Co.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

April 7, 1995.
    Take notice that on April 3, 1995, NorAm Gas Transmission Company 
(NGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective 
February 1, 1995:

Alternate Original Sheet No. 165
Alternate Original Sheet No. 212
Alternate Original Sheet No. 213
Alternate Original Sheet No. 217
Alternate First Revised Original Sheet No. 231
Alternate First Revised Original Sheet No. 309

    Pursuant to the Commission's March 3, 1995 Order Accepting Tariff 
Sheets, Subject to Conditions, and Denying Motion, NGT is reinstituting 
its average index price method of cashing out monthly imbalances.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street 
NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests should be filed 
on or before April 14, 1995. All such protests will be considered by 
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but 
will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-9073 Filed 4-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18592-18593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10386]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5463-5]


Gulf of Mexico Program Issue Committee and Technical Advisory 
Committee Co-Chairs Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Meeting of the Issue Committee and Technical Advisory 
Committee Co-Chairs of the Gulf of Mexico Program.

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

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Program's Issue Committee and Technical 
Advisory Committee Co-Chairs will hold a meeting at the Naval Research 
Laboratory Main Conference Room, Stennis Space Center, Mississippi.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James D. Giattina, Director, Gulf of 
Mexico Program Office, Building 1103, Room 202, John C. Stennis Space 
Center, Stennis Space Center, MS 39529-6000, at (601) 688-3726.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A meeting of the Issue Committee and 
Technical Advisory Committee Co-Chairs of the Gulf of Mexico Program 
will be held May 15-16, 1996, at the Naval Research Laboratory Main 
Conference Room,

[[Page 18593]]

Stennis Space Center, Mississippi. The committee will meet from 10:00 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on May 15 and from 8:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on May 16. 
Agenda items will include: Program Status (Update), Director's 
Perspective (Overview), Co-Chairs Perspective, and Program Priorities. 
The meeting is open to the public.
James D. Giattina,
Director, Gulf of Mexico Program.

Draft Agenda-- IC/TAC Co-Chair Workshop, May 15-16, 1996

Wednesday, May 15

<bullet> Welcome & Introduction of Participants 10:00 am
<bullet> Program Status (Update)
<bullet> Director's Perspective (Overview)
    --Director's Vision
    --Observed Program Strengths and Weaknesses
    --Lessons Learned (Past Ecosystem Management Experiences)
    --Practical Future Concepts/Challenges/Solutions
<bullet> Co-Chairs Perspective (Roundtable Discussion)
    --Observed Program Strengths and Weaknesses
    --Reaction to Future Concepts/Challenges/Solutions
    --Appropriate Future Role of the Committees
<bullet> Adjourn for the day--4:30 pm
<bullet> Director's Social--6:00 pm
    (A sampling of the Gulf's sustainable resources!)

Thursday, May 16

<bullet> Program Priorities--8:30 am
    --Review of Goals and Objectives
    --Establish Consensus on Future Committee Roles & 
Responsibilities
<bullet> Workshop Summary (Director Facilitated)--2:00 pm
    --Summarize Workshop Agreements
    --Establish Follow-up Steps/Actions
<bullet> Workshop Adjourned--3:00 pm

[FR Doc. 96-10386 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
* 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 circumstancesset forth in 5

TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 98-40691

Summary Calendar

_________________

RODNEY LEE WOODS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

J. JOHNNY GONZALES ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. G-96-CV-399

March 16, 1999

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

RodneyLeeWoods, Texasstate prisoner # 627825, appealsfromthe district court’s dismissal

without prejudice of his civil rights complaint for failure to obey a court order. A district court may

sua sponte dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or to comply with any court order. See FED.

R. CIV. P. 41(b); McCullough v. Lynaugh, 835 F.2d 1126, 1127 (5th Cir. 1988). A sua sponte

dismissal by the district court isreviewed for abuse of discretion. See McCullough, 835 F.2d at 1127.

Because of the operation of the statute of limitations, the dismissal would operate as a

dismissal with prejudice ofsome of Woods’ claims. See Long v. Simmons, 77 F.3d 878, 880 (5th Cir.

1996). A dismissal with prejudice “is such a severe sanction that it is to be used only in extreme
-2-

circumstances . . . In the past, we have found that lesser sanctions would suffice in all but the most

flagrant circumstances.” Burden v. Yates, 644 F.2d 503, 505 (5th Cir. Unit B May 1981). Although

dismissal with prejudice is a discretionary matter, we have “ generally permitted it only in the face of

a clear record of delay or contumacious conduct by the plaintiff.” Colle v. Brazos County, Tex., 981

F.2d 237, 243 (5th Cir. 1993). Because there is no clear record of delay or contumacious conduct

byWoods, and because the district court did not employ lessersanctions before dismissing the action,

the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint. See id.

VACATED AND REMANDED.