alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS and Opinion Filed February 7, 2014 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00886-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF N.J., A CHILD 

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-12-20952-S 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Brown 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

In a postcard notice dated September 11, 2013, the Court informed appellant that his brief 

was past due. We instructed appellant to file a brief along with an extension motion within ten 

days. We cautioned appellant that his appeal would be dismissed if he failed to file a brief and 

extension motion within the time requested. As of today’s date, appellant has not filed a brief. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). 

130886F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF N.J., A CHILD 

No. 05-13-00886-CV 

 On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas. 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-12-20952-S. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Brown, 

participating. 

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

 It is ORDERED that appellee, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, recover its costs 

of this appeal from appellant, JOB JACOBS. 

Judgment entered February 7, 2014 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-40940 Conference Calendar

DENNIS W. DADE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus JOE DON ABERNATHY, Department Public Safety Highway Patrol Division; WILLIAM HARLEY CONDRY, Department Public Safety Highway Patrol Division, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:98-CV-165

- - - - - - - - - - June 16, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Dennis W. Dade (TDCJ # 720238) appeals the district court’s dismissal of his in forma pauperis (IFP) civil rights complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). Dade’s complaint was based on the allegedly illegal seizure of money made pursuant to his arrest on possession-of-marijuana charges. Dade indirectlyNo. 98-40940 - 2 - challenges the district court’s determination that his complaint was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, arguing that he would have initiated “these proceedings” sooner if he had known the money was not going to be returned. An IFP complaint may be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if it has no arguable basis in law or in fact. Siglar v. Hightower , 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissals are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id . A dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim is reviewed de novo , applying the same standard used to review a dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Black v. Warren , 134 F.3d 732, 734 (5th Cir. 1998). Even assuming that the district court’s determination that Dade’s complaint was time-barred was in error, the court’s alternative holding that Dade’s claim had no constitutional basis was not erroneous. “[D]eprivations of property caused by the misconduct of state officials do not infringe constitutional due process provided adequate state post-deprivation remedies exist.” Murphy v. Collins , 26 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 1994). Texas’s tort of conversion provides such a remedy. Id

. The district court’s dismissal of the complaint is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 105 (Thursday, May 30, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27060-27061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13552]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. CP96-178-000; CP96-249-000]


Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C., Portland Natural Gas 
Transmission System; Notice of Technical Conference

May 23, 1996.
    Take notice that a technical conference will be convened in the 
above-docketed proceedings on Thursday, June 6, 1996, at 10:00 a.m., in 
a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
    The purpose of the technical conference is to allow the project 
proponents to clarify how the two above-docketed projects will serve 
either local distribution companies or other natural gas customers in 
Maine and New Hampshire. Proponents of these projects and all of the 
interstate pipelines that will provide upstream or downstream 
transportation for the projects should attend and be prepared to answer 
questions relating to the required interconnections and operational 
requirements for each project.
    Specifically, all of the parties should be prepared to discuss the 
following:
    <bullet> What, if any, impediments exist related to Maritimes & 
Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.'s (Maritimes) proposal to interconnect with 
Granite State Gas Transmission, Inc.'s (Granite State) and Tennessee 
Gas Pipeline Company's (Tennessee) existing transmission facilities?
    <bullet> What provisions of Granite State's FERC tariff and 
Maritimes' pro forma FERC tariff apply to Maritimes' and/or its 
shippers' request to interconnect with Granite State and for service on 
Granite State? To what extent have the pipelines and/or shippers 
complied or will comply with such provisions? Also, were the 
interconnections with Granite State for the Portland Natural Gas 
Transmission System (PNGTS) project treated consistently with the 
request by Maritimes for interconnections?
    <bullet> What were the circumstances relating to any other receipt 
or delivery points which Granite State has constructed or plans to 
construct under the terms of its FERC tariff?
    <bullet> What are the potential capacity release volumes and/or 
excess capacity on Tennessee and Granite State for these projects?
    Any party, as defined in 18 CFR 385.214, and any participant, as 
defined in 18 CFR 385.102(b), in the above-docketed proceedings are 
invited to participate in the technical conference.

[[Page 27061]]

However, no topics other than those listed above will be considered. 
For additional information, please contact Amy Heyman (202) 208-0115 or 
Richard Foley, (202) 208-2245, at the Commission.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-13552 Filed 5-29-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 112 (Monday, June 10, 1996)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 29457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14818]





                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 112 / Monday, June 10, 1996 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 29457]]


                Presidential Determination No. 96-30 of June 3, 1996

                
Determination Under Subsection 402(d)(1) of the 
                Trade Act of 1974, as Amended--Continuation of Waiver 
                Authority

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                Pursuant to subsection 402(d)(1) of the Trade Act of 
                1974, as amended (the ``Act''), I determine that the 
                further extension of the waiver authority granted by 
                subsection 402(c) of the Act will substantially promote 
                the objectives of section 402 of the Act. I further 
                determine that the continuation of the waivers 
                applicable to Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, 
                Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Mongolia, 
                Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan will 
                substantially promote the objectives of section 402 of 
                the Act.

                You are authorized and directed to publish this 
                determination in the Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)<Clinton1><Clinton2>

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, June 3, 1996.

[FR Doc. 96-14818
Filed 6-7-96; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29491-29492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14705]



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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95-107; RM-8661]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Clark, CO

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

[[Page 29492]]

SUMMARY: This document denies a petition filed by Brian M. Encke d/b/a 
BME Broadcasting, requesting the allotment of FM Channel 225C2 to 
Clark, Colorado, as that locality's first local aural transmission 
service. The proposal is denied based upon the petitioner's failure to 
demonstrate that Clark constitutes a bona fide ``community'', as that 
term is defined for purposes of Section 307(b) of the Communications 
Act, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, for allotment 
objectives. See 60 FR 36772, July 18, 1995. With this action, the 
proceeding is terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 95-107, adopted May 15, 1996, and 
released June 4, 1996. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Service, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, located at 1919 M Street, NW., Room 246, or 2100 
M Street, NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-14705 Filed 6-10-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
f 

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Lone Arrow Hastings, 

Defendant. 

No. CR-18-08022-001-PCT-GMS 

ORDER 

Defendant appeared in court with counsel. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3141 et. seq. a 

detention hearing was held. The defendant is ordered detained pending an intake 

assessment for ·placement at Crossroads .in Phoenix, Arizona or other facility as 

designated by Pretrial Services. Should defendant qualify for such placement, defendant 

shall be released upon conditions set by this Court, including pretrial residency at said 

facility, as conditions do yxist which would reasonably assure the. safety of others and the 

appearance of the defendant. Should defendant not so qualify, the release conditions set 

by this Court shall be vacated and defendant shall be detained pend~ng trial as there are 

no conditions or combination of conditions which would reasonably assure the safety of 

others or the appearance of the defendant. 

The Pretrial Services Officer is ordered to timely notify this Court of the 

defendant's intake assessment results, and if found acceptable, the date and time the 

II 
1 facility will provide transportation from the_ Sandra Day O'Connor Courthouse for the 

2 defendant. 

3 Dated this 29th day of March, 2018. 

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 

- 2 -

I
#### In re The Marriage of Nathaniel WOFFORD, III, Appellant, v. Deirdre D. Francis WOFFORD, Respondent.

No. WD 46907.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 10, 1993.

Lloyd Koelker, Kansas City, for appellant.

Ronald R. Clark, Williams & Clark, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before TURNAGE, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and SPINDEN, JJ.

TURNAGE, Presiding Judge.

Nathaniel Wofford, III filed suit for the dissolution of his marriage to Deirdre D. Francis Wofford. The court dissolved the marriage and ordered Nathaniel to pay $200 per month maintenance to Deirdre. Nathaniel appeals from the award of maintenance. Reversed and remanded.

Both parties appeared pro se in the trial court. Nathaniel testified as to why he was seeking a dissolution. He had filed a statement of income and expenses which showed his take home pay to be $900 per month.

Deirdre did not file a statement of income and expenses but testified that since the marriage her health had deteriorated. She stated that she had been diagnosed with glaucoma and that she had had surgery on her right hand and that she was right-handed. She stated the surgery did not help her and the job she had required her to do a lot of writing. She stated it was now very painful to write. She indi*844cated that she had been working part-time but had not gone back to work because of her deteriorating eyesight.

Deirdre also testified that she had three children from another marriage. She stated that she was asking for $200 per month in maintenance.

The court found there was no marital property to be divided and ordered Nathaniel to pay Deirdre $200 per month maintenance.

There is no evidence in the record concerning the needs of Deirdre. Section 452.-335.1, RSMo 1988 Supp. provides that the court may grant maintenance to a spouse if it finds that the spouse lacks sufficient property to provide for his or her reasonable needs and is unable to be self-supporting through employment. In *In re the Marriage of Randle,*762 S.W.2d 494, 495 (Mo.App.1988), this court stated:

> In *Horridge v. Horridge,*618 S.W.2d 202, 205[4-7] (Mo.App.1981), this court held that under § 452.335.1 (now RSMo 1986), “... the trial court must have evidence to support a finding as to the reasonable needs of the spouse seeking maintenance ...” In *Trunko v. Trunko,*642 S.W.2d 673, 676[5, 6] (Mo.App.1982), the court held that “... awards of maintenance are within the discretion of the trial court but such awards must be ‘made within ... a reasonable tolerance of proof.’ ” Obviously, the award for maintenance cannot stand without evidence to support it.

In this ease, there was no evidence of the needs of Deirdre and no evidence as to her ability to work and to support herself. As stated in *Randle,*an award of maintenance cannot stand without evidence to support it.

The judgment awarding $200 per month maintenance to Deirdre is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings to determine if Deirdre is entitled to maintenance and if so the amount thereof.

All concur.
Order entered March 31, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00397-CV

IN RE ALBERT G. HILL, III, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11-04523

ORDER

The Court has before it the petition for writ of mandamus filed in the above cause. Upon 

review of the record and the briefing on file in the above captioned mandamus, Cause No. 05-14-

00397-CV, and the appeal in Cause No. 05-13-00732-CV, Albert G. Hill, III v. Albert G. Hill, 

Jr., the Court concludes that there is substantial overlap among the issues presented by the 

appeal, Cause No. 05-13-00732-CV, and the petition for writ of mandamus, Cause No. 05-14-

00397-CV. Accordingly, on its own motion the Court CONSOLIDATES the petition for writ 

of mandamus, Cause No. 05-14-00397-CV, into the appeal, Cause No. 05-13-00732-CV. The 

Court ORDERS that all future pleadings be filed in Cause No. 05-13-00732-CV. Appellant may 

file additional briefing in the appeal, if desired, on the issues raised by the petition for writ of 

mandamus on or before April 30, 2014 or shall notify the Court by that date that it will not file 

additional briefing. Appellee may file a response to appellant’s brief within thirty days of the 
date appellant files its brief or notifies the Court that it will not file briefing in addition to its 

petition for writ of mandamus.

/s/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD 

JUSTICE
#### In re the Marriage of Edward Dean PLUNKETT, Appellant, v. Darlene Lawan PLUNKETT, a/k/a Darlene Aubuchon, Respondent.

No. 56604.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Southern Division.

April 3, 1990.

Wallace L. Duncan, Grace C. Blaich, Poplar Bluff, for appellant.

David L. Mayhugh, Flat River, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgment in a motion to quash an execution and a motion for costs. 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 (Mo. banc 1976).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and ■restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. 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 in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
# United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit

_____________________ No. 16-2009 UNITED STATES,

Appellee,

v.

HECTOR SERRANO-ACEVEDO,

Defendant, Appellant.

**__________________**

**ERRATA SHEET**

The opinion of this Court, issued on June 13, 2018, is amended as follows:

On page 7, line 17, replace "SWAT time" with "SWAT team"
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**LISA COPNEY, AS ADMINISTRATIX OF**

**THE ESTATE OF LAWRENCE COPNEY**
**JR.,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**EDWARD MA, M.D., UPMC ST. MARGARET, AND UPMC, INC.,** 

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 175 WAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 4th day of October, 2016, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 607 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 607

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 20, 2009.
Whereas President John F. Kennedy in his May 25, 1961, speech to Congress set 
        forth the goal of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to 
        the Earth;
Whereas the Apollo program was designed to achieve the goal established by 
        President Kennedy by sending a crew of three astronauts to the Moon and 
        returning them safely to the Earth;
Whereas the Apollo program built on the knowledge and experience gained from the 
        Mercury and Gemini human space flight programs, as well as from 
        precursor robotic lunar exploration activities;
Whereas the crew of Apollo 11 consisted of Neil Armstrong, Mission Commander, 
        Buzz Aldrin, Lunar Module Pilot, and Michael Collins, Command Module 
        Pilot;
Whereas the crew of Apollo 11 launched into space aboard a Saturn V rocket on 
        July 16, 1969, on a 4-day trip to the Moon;
Whereas, on July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin successfully piloted 
        the Eagle Lunar Module to the surface of the Moon;
Whereas, on July 20, 1969, when Neil Armstrong took his first step on the Moon, 
        he became the first person to walk on the surface of another celestial 
        body;
Whereas the Apollo 11 Moon landing was the culmination of the efforts of tens of 
        thousands of scientists, engineers, and other dedicated individuals and 
        organizations;
Whereas the Apollo 11 Moon landing was experienced by millions of people all 
        around the world by means of radio and television broadcasts;
Whereas the Apollo 11 astronauts left a plaque on the lunar surface that stated: 
        ``We came in peace for all mankind'';
Whereas the successful Apollo 11 Moon landing was one of the most significant 
        events of the 20th century and inspired a generation to strive towards 
        great accomplishments in space and on Earth; and
Whereas the Apollo 11 achievement continues to inspire Americans as we prepare 
        for future human journeys back to the Moon and other destinations in the 
        solar system: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) celebrates the 40th Anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing;
            (2) honors the brave crew of the Apollo 11 mission--Neil Armstrong, 
        ``Buzz'' Aldrin, and Michael Collins; and
            (3) commends all those individuals and organizations who contributed 
        to such a historic achievement that continues to be an inspiration to 
        the Nation and the world.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 28596]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14069]



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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA'')

    In accordance with the Department policy, notice is hereby given 
that a proposed consent decree in United States v. Koppers Industries, 
Inc., et al, Civil Action No. 93-10136, was lodged on May 20, 1996 with 
the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. 
The consent decree resolves the liability under CERCLA of defendants 
Koppers Industries Inc., Beazer East, Inc., and CSX Transportation, 
Inc. under section 107 of CERCLA in connection with response actions at 
the Cabot Carbon/Koppers Superfund Site in Gainesville, Alachua County, 
Florida. Under the consent decree, the defendants will reimburse the 
United States for $1,290,071.11 in past response costs and pay 
oversight costs incurred by the United States in connection with 
certain response actions being conducted at the site.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty days 
(30) from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to  
United States v. Koppers Industries, Inc., et al., DOJ Ref. #90-11-2-
622A.
    The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the 
United States Attorney, 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 510, 
Tallahassee, Florida 32301; the Region IV Office of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, 345 Courtland Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30365; 
and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor, 
Washington, DC 20005, (202) 624-0892. A copy of the proposed consent 
decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the Consent Decree 
Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005. In 
requesting a copy please refer to the referenced case and enclose a 
check in the amount of $8.50 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), 
payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 96-14069 Filed 6-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M