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

San Antonio, Texas

October 7, 2019

No. 04-19-00232-CR

Abrosia LERMA Jr.,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B17137

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed briefs pursuant to Anders v. California,

368 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. 

Counsel has informed the appellant of his right to file his own briefs and provided appellant with

a form motion for requesting the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no

pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). The

State has filed letters, asserting that it takes no position on whether the appeals are frivolous.

If the appellant desires to file pro se briefs in these appeals, he must do so within twenty 

days from the date of this order. See Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. If the appellant files pro se 

briefs, the State may file responsive briefs no later than twenty days after the date appellant’s pro 

se briefs are filed in this court. We ORDER the motions to withdraw, filed by appellant’s 

counsel in these appeals, to be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of the court.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of October, 2019.

___________________________________

Luz Estrada,

Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 2

Case 2:17-cv-04540-DGC Document 291-2 Filed 01/10/20 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:17-cv-04540-DGC Document 291-2 Filed 01/10/20 Page 2 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Ronald Wolfson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bayview Loan Servicing LLC, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-17-08258-PCT-GMS

ORDER 

 This matter having recently come before this Court, 

IT IS ORDERED that a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) is discouraged if 

the defect can be cured by filing an amended pleading. Therefore, the parties must meet 

and confer prior to the filing of a motion to dismiss to determine whether it can be 

avoided. Consequently, motions to dismiss must be accompanied by a notice of 

certification of conferral indicating that the parties have conferred to determine whether 

an amendment could cure a deficient pleading, and have been unable to agree that the 

pleading is curable by a permissible amendment. In addition, parties shall endeavor not 

to oppose motions to amend that are filed prior to the Scheduling Conference or within 

the time set forth in the Rule 16 Case Management Order. Motions to dismiss that do not 

contain the required certification are subject to be stricken on the Court’s motion. 

 Dated this 5th day of December, 2017. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-08258-GMS Document 12 Filed 12/05/17 Page 1 of 1
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Adam Roth, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Allstate Insurance Company, et al., 

Defendants. 

NO. CV-17-00587-TUC-FRZ

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE 

 Decision by Court. This action came for consideration before the Court. The 

issues have been considered and a decision has been rendered. 

 IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the Court’s Order filed 

February 7, 2018, this case is remanded to the Pima County Superior Court. 

 Brian D. Karth

 District Court Executive/Clerk of Court

February 7, 2018 

s/ Danielle Scumaci-Vroegh 

 By Deputy Clerk

 

Case 4:17-cv-00587-FRZ Document 22 Filed 02/07/18 Page 1 of 1
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 429 

Congratulating Jockey Calvin Borel for his victory at the 135th Kentucky 

Derby. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2009 

Mr. MELANCON submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating Jockey Calvin Borel for his victory at the 

135th Kentucky Derby. 

Whereas Calvin Borel, born and raised in St. Martin Parish, 

Louisiana, began riding match horse races at the age of 

8 in the State of Louisiana; 

Whereas Mr. Borel began his professional career as a jockey 

at the age of 16; 

Whereas Mr. Borel is known for his work ethic and, even 

while ranked as a leading rider, often gallops horses and 

does stable chores for his brother before working horses 

in the morning; 

Whereas Mr. Borel won his second Kentucky Derby riding 

Mine That Bird after riding Street Sense to victory in 

2007; 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 429 IH 

Whereas, on May 2, 2009, Mr. Borel won the Kentucky 

Derby on Mine That Bird, a 50–1 long shot, a day after 

winning the Kentucky Oaks aboard favorite Rachel Alexandra; 

Whereas it was only the second time since 1993 that a jockey 

has won the Oaks-Derby combo and just the seventh 

jockey overall to accomplish this feat in the same year; 

and 

Whereas, on May 2, 2009, in 2 minutes and 2.17 seconds 

Mr. Borel and Mine That Bird completed the race and 

placed first: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives com2 mends Calvin Borel for his victory at the 135th Kentucky 

3 Derby. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Cite as 2015 Ark. 456

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CR-13-415

RODNEY STEVEN FLETCHER

 PETITIONER

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

 RESPONDENT

Opinion Delivered December 3, 2015

PRO SE PETITION TO REINVEST

JURISDICTION IN THE TRIAL

COURT TO CONSIDER A PETITION

FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS

[FULTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

NO. 25CR-10-77]

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

 In 2012, petitioner Rodney Fletcher was found guilty by a jury of commercial burglary,

theft of property, and fraud. Fletcher was sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate term

of 1,200 months’ imprisonment, and a fine of $35,000 was imposed. The Arkansas Court of

Appeals affirmed. Fletcher v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 50.

Subsequently, Fletcher timely filed in the trial court a pro se petition for postconviction

relief pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 37.1 (2012). A hearing was held on the

petition, and the trial court denied the relief sought. We affirmed the order. Fletcher v. State,

2015 Ark. 106, 458 S.W.3d 234 (per curiam).

Now before us is Fletcher’s pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to

consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the case. The petition for leave to proceed

in the trial court is necessary because the trial court can entertain a petition for writ of error

coram nobis after a judgment has been affirmed on appeal only after we grant permission. 

Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61. 
Cite as 2015 Ark. 456

We need not discuss the scope of a coram-nobis proceeding because Fletcher does not

argue in his petition that there is any ground on which the writ should, or could, issue in his case. 

When a petitioner does not so much as raise a claim for relief, there is no basis on which this

court can grant leave to proceed in the trial court. It is axiomatic that a petitioner must state a

basis for the writ supported by specific facts that demonstrate that there is merit to the claim

raised.1 See State v. Larimore, 341 Ark. 397, 407, 17 S.W.3d 87, 93 (2000).

Petition denied.

1After the State filed its response to Fletcher’s coram-nobis petition, he tendered a

response to the State’s response to which he appended a copy of a coram-nobis petition that he

had filed in the trial court on April 27, 2015. We do not consider that trial-court petition as an

attachment to the petition filed here because it was not appended to the original petition, and

there is no provision in the prevailing rules of procedure to file a response to a response.

2
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 21, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12740]



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

FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION


Request for Additional Information

    Agreement No.: 202-010424-032.
    Title: United States Atlantic and Gulf Hispaniola Steamship Freight 
Association.
    Parties: Crowley American Transport, Inc., NPR, Inc. d/d/a 
Navieras, A.P. Moller-Maersk Line, Sea-Land Service, Inc.
    Synopsis: Notice is hereby given that the Federal Maritime 
Commission pursuant to section 6(d) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 
U.S.C. app. 1701-1720) has requested additional information from the 
parties to the Agreement in order to complete the statutory review of 
Agreement No. 202-010424-032 as required by the Act. This action 
extends the review period as provided in section 6(c) the Act.

    Dated: May 16, 1996.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Joseph C. Polking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-12740 Filed 5-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6730-01-M
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 18, 2018

No. 04-16-00755-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF AMINITA PEREZ-MUZZA, DECEASED,

From the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007PB7000089 L2

Honorable Jesus Garza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The panel has considered the appellant’s motion for rehearing and the motion is 

DENIED.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

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

court on this 18th day of June, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Case 2:17-cr-01412-DGC Document 1 Filed 10/24/17 Page 1 of 1
[LETTERHEAD OF NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY]


                                November 8, 2000


Andrew Mazzone
Thermal Tec International
68A Lamar St.
W. Babylon, NY 11730

                                                Re: Thermal spraying - TTI

To Whom It May Concern:

The New York State Thruway Authority has approved and is currently using
Thermally Sprayed coatings as an acceptable method of corrosion protection of
Bridge Structural Steel.

Thermal Tec International is currently an approved Thermal Spray Applicator for
New York State Thruway Authority bridge metallizing projects.

Feel free to cal1 me at (518)471-4222 should you have any questions.

                                                /s/ Thomas A. Mahar

                                                Thomas A. Mahar, P.E.
                                                Civil Engineer
                                                Bridge Management Bureau
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 91 (Thursday, May 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11584]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER96-1207-000]


Southern California Edison Co.; Notice of Filing

May 1, 1996.
    Take notice that on March 29, 1996, Southern California Water 
Company tendered for filing a Certificate of Concurrence in the above-
referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests must be filed on or before May 13, 1996. 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-11584 Filed 5-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
DENY; and Opinion Filed February 26, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-00169-CV

IN RE PATRICK EDWARD BROWN, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-13-11859

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices O'Neill, Lang, and Brown 

Opinion by Justice O'Neill

Before the Court is relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Relator contends that the 

trial court clearly abused its discretion in dismissing his case for want of prosecution despite his 

motion to compel arbitration and his objection to the date of the dismissal hearing. The facts and 

issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Relator’s petition does 

not comply with Rule 52.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Relator has failed to 

provide a certified or sworn copy of the order complained of, has failed to provide an appendix,

and has failed to certify that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent 

evidence in the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g), (j) & (k). Thus, based on the record before 

us, the relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a); 

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Moreover, even 

taking all of relator’s allegations as true, the petition demonstrates that relator has an adequate 
–2–

remedy by appeal. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 842. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of 

mandamus. 

140169F.P05

/Michael J. O'Neill/

MICHAEL O’NEILL

JUSTICE
Order entered October 29 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 14 - 00996 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 00997 - CR No. 05 - 14 - 00998 - CR MICHAEL JERARD RICHA RDSON, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 416th Judicia l District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . 416 - 82939 - 2012 , 416 - 82940 - 2012, 416 - 82942 - 2012 

### O RDER The Court REINSTATES the appeals. On October 7, 2014, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the reporter’s record had n ot been filed. We also ordered the trial court to file completed certifications of appellant’s right to appeal. On October 17, 2014, we received supplemental clerk’s records with the completed certifications and on October 27, 2014, we received the report er’s record. Therefore, we conclude findings are no longer necessary and VACATE the October 7, 2014 order only to the extent it required findings. Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 2545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1342]



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


NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts; Media Arts Advisory Meeting

    Purusant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Public Law 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting 
of the Media Arts Advisory Panel (Radio/Television Section) to the 
National Council on the Arts will be held on January 31, 1996 from 9:00 
a.m. to 5:30 p.m. This meeting will be held in Room 716, at the Nancy 
Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20506.
    A portion of this meeting will be open to the public from 5:00 p.m. 
to 5:30 p.m. for a policy discussion.
    The remaining portion of this meeting from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 
is for the purpose of Panel review, discussion, evaluation, and 
recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the 
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as 
amended, including information given in confidence to the agency by 
grant applicants. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman 
of June 22, 1995, this session will be closed to the public pursuant to 
subsection (c) (4), (6) and (9)(B) of section 552b of Title 5, United 
States Code.
    Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory 
panels which are open to the public, and may be permitted to 
participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion of the panel 
chairman and with the approval of the full-time Federal employee in 
attendance.
    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please 
contact the Office of AccessAbility, National Endowment for the Arts, 
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20506, 202/682-5532, 
TDY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days prior to the meeting.
    Further information with reference to this meeting can be obtained 
from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Committee Management Officer, National 
Endowment for the Arts, Washington, D.C. 20506, or call 202/682-5691.

    Dated: January 22, 1996.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 96-1342 Filed 1-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 75-37-01-M
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-40407 Conference Calendar

THOMAS A. BURNS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DENTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; WELDON LUCAS, Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CV-144

- - - - - - - - - - June 26, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Thomas Burns, #715502, appeals from the district court’s dismissal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) of his civil rights complaint. Burns contends that he stated a valid conditions-of-confinement violation. We have reviewed the record and Burns’ brief and conclude that his appeal is frivolous. We caution Burns that any additional frivolous appeals filed by himNo. 96-40407 - 2 - or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Burns is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26945-26946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13400]



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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice 2397]


Office of the Under Secretary for Economic and Agricultural 
Affairs; Notice of Receipt of Application for a Permit for Pipeline 
Facilities Constructed and Maintained on the Borders of the United 
States of America

dates: Interested parties are invited to submit, in duplicate, comments 
relative to this proposal no later than 30 days

[[Page 26946]]

after publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

for further information contact: Stephen Gallogly, Chief, Division of 
Energy Producer Country Affairs, Office of International Energy Policy, 
Department of State, Washington, DC 20520. (202) 647-1476.
    The Department of State has received an application from Rio Grande 
Pipeline Company for a Presidential permit, pursuant to Executive Order 
11423 of August 16, 1988, as amended by Executive Order 12847 of May 
17, 1993 to construct a new liquid petroleum gas (LPG) pipeline that 
will originate in Hudspeth County, Texas and terminate in Ciudad 
Juarez, Mexico. The pipeline will cross the U.S.-Mexico International 
Border in El Paso County, south of the town of San Elizario at Latitude 
31 degrees, 33 minutes, 2 seconds and Longitude 106 degrees, 15 minutes 
and 40 seconds.
    Rio Grande Pipeline Company is a partnership having its principal 
office in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Applicant is a Texas General Partnership of 
Juarez Pipeline Company (Juarez), Amoco Rio Grande Pipeline Company 
(AMOCO), and Navajo Southern, Inc. (Navajo).

    Dated: May 23, 1996.
Glen R. Rase,
Director, Office of International Energy and Commodities Policy.
[FR Doc. 96-13400 Filed 5-28-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-M
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-3501

___________________________ Herman Hampton
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Standard Insurance Company
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________ Submitted: July 15, 2020 Filed: August 7, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before LOKEN, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.
Herman Hampton appeals following the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his pro se action. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.Following de novo review, this court finds no basis for reversal. See Johnson

v. Outboard Marine Corp. , 172 F.3d 531, 535 (8th Cir. 1999) (standard of review). Hampton’s claim to recover benefits due him under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) failed because the plan under which he sought long-term disability benefits was a governmental plan not subject to ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(32) (governmental plan means plan established or maintained for its employees by state government or instrumentality thereof), 1003(b)(1) (ERISA provisions do not apply to governmental plans); Sanzone v. Mercy Health , 954 F.3d 1031, 1040, 1046 (8th Cir. 2020) (whether plan is ERISA plan is element of plaintiff’s case, and plaintiff failed to state ERISA claim where plan was exempt).
Hampton’s breach-of-contract claim failed because the defendant acted in accordance with the contract in denying the claim for benefits after Hampton elected a refund of his plan contributions that ended his plan participation. See Al-Khaldiya Elecs. & Elec. Equip. Co. v. Boeing Co. , 571 F.3d 754, 758-59 (8th Cir. 2009) (under Missouri law, there is no breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing where contract expressly allows challenged actions); Dorsch v. Family Med., Inc. , 159 S.W.3d 424, 437 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005) (plaintiff failed to state breach of contract claim where he essentially claimed that defendant breached contract by expressly following it). Hampton could not avoid the consequences of electing the refund, even if he did not fully understand the legal ramifications of doing so. See Grossman v. Thoroughbred Ford, Inc. , 297 S.W.3d 918, 922 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) (Missouri law presumes that party had knowledge of contract he signed, and those who sign contract may not avoid consequences of agreement on basis that they did not know what they were signing). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hampton’s post-judgment motion. See Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker , 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5 (2008); Voss v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Magnolia , 917 F.3d 618, 626 n.6 (8th Cir. 2019).
The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-2-