alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jan Adrian POLAK, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 04-95-00243-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.

Sept. 27, 1995.

James R. Cowan, Jr., San Antonio, for appellant.

Brenda Levenstein, Assistant District Attorney, San Antonio, for appellee.

Before CHAPA, C.J., and STONE and HARDBERGER, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The trial court rendered judgment on February 25, 1991, placing appellant on deferred adjudication probation for a period of six months.. No motion to revoke probation was filed before the expiration of this period in August 1991. Even so, the trial court purported to begin appellant’s period of probation anew following a hearing on October 8, 1992. A third hearing was held on December 10, 1992. Although the trial court indicated there was a motion to revoke probation, there is no such motion of record. At a fourth hearing in January 1993 the trial court again made reference to a motion to revoke probation, but no such motion was filed. On June 24, 1993, the trial court purported to extend appellant’s probation for an additional six months. On February 22, 1995, the trial court purported to revoke appellant’s probation, adjudicate his guilt, and sentence him to 90 days confinement. Appellant raises three points of error contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction on February 22, 1995, to revoke his probation and adjudicate his guilt. We agree.

The State has conceded error: “[T]he State is unable to find support for the trial court’s jurisdiction to continue past August 25, 1991. Since no motion to enter adjudication had been filed prior to that date, the trial court lost jurisdiction over the Appellant.”

The judgment of the trial court dated February 22, 1995, is vacated.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JASPAL SINGH BAL,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent. No. 20

- 72596

Agency No. A098

- 752

- 208

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 19, 2021 * *

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Jaspal Singh Bal, a native and citizen of India , petitions pro se for review of

the Board of Immig ration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to remand

and dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision finding him

removable and denying his application for withholding of removal and relief under

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JUL 22 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPE ALS2 20

- 72596

the Convention Against Torture (“ CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8

U.S.C. § 1252

. We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to

remand

. Movsisian v. Ashcroft , 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005)

. We deny the

petition for review.

In his opening brief, Bal does not challenge the BIA’s determination that he

waived any challenge to the IJ’s denial of withholding of removal based on the

determination that he was convicted of a particularly serious crime

. See Lopez

Vasquez v. Holder , 706 F.3 d 1072, 1079

- 80 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically

raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). Bal also does not

challenge the determination that he was removable as charged or the denial of

deferral of removal under CAT. See id . Thu s, we deny the petition for review as

to removability

, withholding o f removal and relief under CAT

.

T he BIA did not abuse its d iscretion in denying Bal’s motion to remand to

consider new evidence for deferral of removal under CAT

, where he failed to

demo nstrate that the evidence he submitted was previously un available and could

not have been discovered or presented at the former hearing

. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 1003.2(c)(1) ; see also Movsisian , 395 F.3d at 1097

- 98 (a motion to reopen, filed

while an appeal is pending before the BIA, is treated as a motion to remand).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Susie R. PONDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ANGEL ANIMAL HOSPITAL, INC. and Phillip G. Trokey, D.V.M., Defendants-Respondents.

No. 15503.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Dec. 28, 1988.

Richard L. Anderson, Anderson & Selby, Kimberling City, for plaintiff-appellant.

*847Robert W. Schroff, John G. Newberry, Schroff, Glass & Newberry, Springfield, for defendants-respondents.

PREWITT, Judge.

Plaintiff asserted that she took her male Chow Chow dog to Angel Animal Hospital, Inc. (Angel) for “the limited purpose of grooming and clipping” but he was instead castrated there due to the “negligence” of defendant Phillip G. Trokey, a doctor of veterinary medicine. Trial commenced before a jury and at the close of plaintiffs evidence the trial judge directed a verdict for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.

The question here is whether sufficient evidence was presented to entitle plaintiff to an award of damages. Generally the measure of damages to animals is their difference in fair market value before and after the injury. *Wright v. Edison,*619 S.W.2d 797, 802 (Mo.App.1981). There was no evidence of a reduction in value of the dog due to the castration, or any evidence showing a monetary loss due to it to the plaintiff. Actionable negligence requires proof that the claimant was injured. *Wise v. Sands,*739 S.W.2d 731, 734 (Mo.App.1987). Plaintiff failed to prove any such loss.

Appearing to acknowledge that this court may find that she failed to prove any damages, plaintiff states that she should be entitled to receive “at minimum nominal damages, the amount to be determined by the jury”. That contention has no merit. As damages are an element of a cause of action for negligence, nominal damages cannot be awarded on such a claim. *Wise,*supra739 S.W.2d at 734. Since there was no evidence of damage to plaintiff, the trial court correctly directed a verdict for defendants.

The judgment is affirmed.

FLANIGAN, P.J., and HOGAN and MAUS, JJ., concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 9, 2010 

s0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

141045 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141045 

 COA: 295878 

Wayne CC: 02-013472-FH 

JEREMIAH WILLIAM BROOKS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 2, 2010 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s motion 

for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 116 (Friday, June 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 30263]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15152]



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


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Phased Withdrawal From the Small Business Innovation Research 
(SBIR) Program in FY 1996

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The NRC has participated in the SBIR program since its 
inception in 1982. However, due to significant reductions in the NRC's 
FY 1996 budget, the extramural research and development (R&D) budget 
falls substantially below the $100 million threshold for mandatory 
participation in the SBIR program. This current trend is expected to 
continue into future fiscal years. The NRC must focus its limited 
research funds on high priority work needed to support, confirm, or 
refine judgments used in regulatory decisions affecting public health 
and safety. Therefore, the NRC requested, in a letter to the U.S. Small 
Business Administration, Office of Technology dated September 19, 1995, 
approval for a phased withdrawal from the SBIR program in FY 1996 and 
beyond. SBA responded on April 16, 1996, that the NRC's phased 
withdrawal was approved. Should the NRC's extramural R&D budget 
increase above the $100 million threshold in the coming years, the NRC 
would again participate in the SBIR program.
    The phased withdrawal is being accomplished as follows: (1) A SBIR 
Phase I solicitation will not be issued in FY 1996 or future years 
while the NRC is below the mandatory threshold for participation in 
this program; (2) in FY 1996 the NRC will fund between one-third and 
one-half of the Phase II proposals resulting from its FY 1995 SBIR 
Phase I awards; and (3) the NRC is informing the small business 
community of this action through this Federal Register Notice and will 
issue letters to the small businesses on its SBIR mailing list.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marianne Riggs on (301) 415-5822 or 
Deborah Neff on (301) 415-8160.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC continues to support small business 
opportunities. For further information regarding the NRC small business 
program, you may contact the Office of Small Business and Civil Rights 
on (301) 415-7380.

    Dated at Rockville, MD this 10th day of June 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Mary H. Mace,
Contracting Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-15152 Filed 6-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Form of Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated as of December 31, 2008



 Exhibit 10.39 
 FORM OF AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 This AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the “Amendment”) dated as of December 31, 2008 is by and between Pacer _____________, Inc.
(the “Company”), and ___________________ (the “Executive”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive have
executed a Employment Agreement dated as of ___________________ (together with any previous amendments, the “Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive wish to enter into this Amendment to modify the Agreement as set forth herein. 
 Accordingly, in
consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth in this Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by the Company and the Executive, the Company and the
Executive hereby agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Effective immediately the Agreement is amended to add the following paragraph to the end of Section 8(b): 

 Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section 8(b), if on the date of Executive’s termination, Executive is a “specified employee” as
defined in Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Section 409A”), and an exception from Section 409A’s requirements is not available as to any one or more payments or installments, Executive shall
not receive a distribution of such payment or installment under this Agreement until six months after the date of termination. If Executive is subject to the restriction described in the previous sentence, Executive will be paid on the first
day of the seventh month after termination an amount equal to the benefit that Executive would have been paid during such six-month period absent such restriction. In furtherance of the application of all possible exceptions to requirements of
Section 409A, each payment or installment shall be treated as a separate payment in order to maximize the application of payments during the “short term deferral period” under Section 409A. 
  

	2.	Except as expressly modified by this Amendment, the Agreement remains in full force and effect in accordance with its terms 

  

	3.	This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. Execution by facsimile or other electronic counterpart shall constitute a valid manner of
execution. 

  

 1 of 2 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized
representatives as of the date first listed above. 
 Pacer ______________, Inc. 
  

			
		
	By:	 	 
	Name:	 	
	Title:	 	

  

	
	
	
	  
	[Name of Executive]

  

 2 of 2
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 747 

Congratulating the United States Military Academy at West Point on being 

named by Forbes magazine as America’s Best College for 2009. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 

Mr. HALL of New York (for himself, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. MARSHALL, and Mr. 

TIAHRT) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Congratulating the United States Military Academy at West 

Point on being named by Forbes magazine as America’s 

Best College for 2009. 

Whereas Forbes magazine has named the United States Military Academy at West Point as America’s Best College 

for 2009; 

Whereas U.S. News & World Report has named West Point 

as the Best Public Liberal Arts College in the United 

States; 

Whereas U.S. News & World Report has consistently rated 

West Point’s undergraduate engineering program as 

among the best in the United States; 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 747 IH 

Whereas the United States has had a military presence at 

West Point since the Revolutionary War because of its 

strategic position overlooking the Hudson River; 

Whereas General George Washington selected Thaddeus 

Kosciuszko to design West Point’s fortifications in 1778; 

Whereas West Point is the oldest continuously occupied military post in America; 

Whereas President Thomas Jefferson established the United 

States Military Academy at West Point in 1802; 

Whereas West Point has educated many of the United States 

Army’s commissioned officers; 

Whereas West Point instructs 4,400 cadets per year in academics, military tactics, physical fitness, and leadership—all free of tuition; 

Whereas 1,000 cadets graduate each year and are commissioned second lieutenants in the United States Army; 

Whereas 2 Presidents of the United States, 74 Congressional 

Medal of Honor recipients, 88 Rhodes Scholars, 33 Marshall Scholars, and 28 Truman Scholars have graduated 

from West Point; 

Whereas, in addition to academics and military training, 

West Point offers extracurricular activities that include 

115 athletic and non-sport clubs and the Eisenhower 

Hall Theatre; and 

Whereas West Point offers a well-rounded, highly regarded 

education to the next generation of the Nation’s leaders: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HRES 747 IH 

1 (1) congratulates the United States Military 

2 Academy at West Point on being named by Forbes 

3 magazine as America’s Best College for 2009; 

4 (2) supports West Point’s mission ‘‘to educate, 

5 train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets so that each 

6 graduate is a commissioned leader of character com7 mitted to the values of Duty, Honor, Country and 

8 prepared for a career of professional excellence and 

9 service to the Nation as an officer in the United 

10 States Army’’; and 

11 (3) directs the Clerk of the House of Represent12 atives to transmit a copy of this resolution for ap13 propriate display to the Superintendent of West 

14 Point. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________
N O . 09

- 23

- 00277

- CV

__________________ FOSTER TIMBER, LTD

. , Appellant

V.

TYLER EPSTEIN, TRUSTEE OF THE ELMWOOD REVOCABLE TRUST , Appellee

__________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 411th District Court Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. CIV21

- 0338

__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Foster Timber, Ltd.

, Appellant, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. See Tex.

R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). The Appellant filed the motion before the appellate court

issued a decision in the appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex.

R. App. P. 43.2(f).2 APPEAL DISM I SSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on Octob er 25, 2023 Opinion Delivered October 26, 2 0 23 Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
Cause No.: 06-14-00079-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SIXTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TEXARKANA MONDEE STRACENER, Appellant 

## v. DOUG STRACENER, BERNICE L. STRACENERAND JOEY KEITH STRACENER, Appellees APPELLEES' RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S MOTION TO PERMIT LATE FILING TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT: Come now, Doug Stracener, Bernice 

### L. Stracener, and Joey Keith Stracener, hereinafterreferred to asAppellees, and file this ResponsetoAppellant's Motionto Permit Late Filing. 

### I. Appellees would showthe Courtthatthis matter has been pending since February 21, 2006, in the District Court of Upshur County, Texas. There have been repeated hearings involving a division of the property and other matters including temporary restraining orders and injunctions. 

### 11. The instant case was the subject to an appeal to the Twelfth District Court of Appeals in Tylerin Cause No.: 12-10-000270-CV,which appeal complained ofthefindings of the Honorable Richard Davis. The case was affirmed in all ways by the Court of Appeals and remanded to the Trial Courtfor further proceedings.

Appellees' Response to Appellant's Motion for Late Filing Page 1 ACCEPTED 06-14-00079-CV SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 8/12/2015 4:44:35 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK

### BY--,f,L..~Y-L----7'---1,C-:....::_~~~~~~ id

. Grif h State Bar N . 479300 E-Mail: davidg@griffithlawfirm.com Attorney forAppellees
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on August 

# h ,2015, a true and correct copy of Appellees' ResponsetoAppellant's Motionto Permit Late Filing has beenserved on RobertM. Minton electronically at mintonbrown@suddenlinkmail.com and the electronic transmission was reported as complete.

Appellees' Response to Appellant's Motion for Late Filing Page 3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHARLES DAVILA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

DAVID G. SMITH, M.D.,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 16-16525

D.C. No. 15-cv-00094-LJO-EPG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2017**

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Charles Davila appeals pro se from the district 

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Americans with Disabilities 

Act (“ADA”) action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs 

and disability discrimination. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 21 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-16525

review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. 

Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and 

remand.

The district court properly dismissed Davila’s deliberate indifference claim 

because Davila failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Smith was deliberately 

indifferent to his medical issues. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th 

Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must still 

present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Toguchi 

v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1057-60 (9th Cir. 2004) (deliberate indifference is a high 

legal standard; medical malpractice, negligence, or a difference of opinion 

concerning the course of treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference).

The district court properly dismissed Davila’s disability discrimination claim 

because Davila failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Smith discriminated

against him because of a disability. See Simmons v. Navajo County, 609 F.3d 

1011, 1022 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The ADA prohibits discrimination because of 

disability, not inadequate treatment for disability.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction over Davila’s state law claims after dismissing the 

federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Tritchler v. County of Lake, 358 F.3d 

1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review). However, the state law claims 
3 16-16525

should have been dismissed without prejudice. See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. 

Police Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (dismissal based on declining 

supplemental jurisdiction should be without prejudice). Accordingly, we vacate 

the judgment to the extent it dismisses Davila’s state law claims with prejudice and 

remand for the sole purpose of dismissing the state law claims without prejudice.

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
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

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Leonardo Anorve-Lopez,

Defendant.

No. CR-18-00201-001-TUC-JGZ (EJM)

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Eric J. Markovich’s report and 

recommendation that Defendant be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. The defendant 

indicates the government does not oppose the motion. Accordingly, the Court will adopt 

the recommendation. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED the report and recommendation (Doc. 24) is 

adopted. The Defendant's Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea (Doc. 20) is GRANTED. 

This matter IS SET FOR trial on December 11, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. The plea deadline is 

November 21, 2018.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Sentencing Hearing on October 9, 2018 at 11:40

a.m. IS VACATED.

Dated this 5th day of October, 2018.
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 Cytta Corp. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended  December 31, 2010 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Stephen  Spalding,
Chief Executive 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; and

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

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



/s/ Stephen Spalding
---------------------------------
Name:  Stephen Spalding
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date:  February 18, 2011