alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-11022

Conference Calendar

 

SYLVESTOR DONALD JAMES, III,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM GONZALES, Dr., ET AL.,

Defendants,

WILLIAM GONZALES, DR.; TIM REVELL, M.D.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:98-CV-138

- - - - - - - - - -

April 19, 1999

Before JONES, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Sylvestor Donald James, III, Texas inmate # 548272,

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the

district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint

as frivolous. The district court may dismiss an IFP complaint as

frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if it lacks an 
No. 98-11022

-2-

arguable basis in law or fact. Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d

191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). We review the dismissal of an IFP

complaint as frivolous for an abuse of discretion. Id.

James’ allegations against Dr. Revell do not demonstrate a

constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Varnado v.

Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991) (a prisoner’s

disagreement with prison officials regarding medical treatment

does not give rise to a § 1983 cause of action; negligence,

neglect, medical malpractice, and unsuccessful medical treatment

do not constitute a § 1983 violation). James’ allegations

against Dr. Gonzales also do not demonstrate a constitutional

violation under § 1983. See Baskin v. Parker, 602 F.2d 1205,

1207-08 (5th Cir. 1979)(defendant cannot be held liable under

§ 1983 on a theory of vicarious liability, including respondeat

superior).

James’ appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. 

See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. See 5TH CIR. R.

42.2. 

The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the dismissal

in the district court of the complaint as frivolous count as two

separate “strikes” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We

caution James that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not

proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is

incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under

imminent danger of serious physical injury.

DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; WARNING ISSUED.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 126 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16607]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service


Environmental Assessment

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The National Park Service announces the publication of ``The 
Final Environmental Assessment to Provide Additional Housing for the 
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida'', which includes the Record of 
Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact and the Statement of 
Findings for Wetlands Protection and Floodplain Management. The 
location addressed is in the Special Use Permit Area of Everglades 
National Park, along the north boundary, near State Highway 41.

DATES: Copies of the assessment are immediately available.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the assessment may be obtained from the Public 
Affairs Office, Everglades National Park, 40001 State Road 9336, 
Homestead, FL 33034-6733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Cook, Public Affairs Officer, 
(305) 242-7700.
Elaine D'Amico Hall,
Acting Deputy Superintendent.
[FR Doc. 96-16607 Filed 6-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
#### Benjamin A. FRANKLIN, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 48836.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 12, 1994.

Rebecca L. Kurz, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Traci J. Sanders, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SMART, P.J., and KENNEDY and ULRICH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from the denial of a Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 9, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36077-36078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17397]


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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Application for Incidental Take Permit for Attwater's Greater 
Prairie Chicken; Colorado County et al., TX

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Receipt of Application for Incidental Take Permit for 
Surveying Attwater's Greater Prairie Chicken in Colorado, Galveston, 
and Refugio Counties; Glen Rose, College Station, Houston, and San 
Antonio, Texas.

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

APPLICANT: Terry Rossignal, Eagle Lake, Texas.

SUMMARY: Terry Rossignal has applied to the Fish and Wildlife Service 
(Service) for an incidental take permit pursuant to Section 10(A)1(a) 
of the Endangered Species Act, for the purpose of scientific research 
and enhancement of propogation and survival of Attwater's greater 
prairie chicken (Tympanuchus cupido attwateri) as prescribed by Service 
recovery documents. The applicant has been assigned permit number PRT-
814917. The requested permit, which is for a period of 2 years, would 
authorize incidental take of Attwater's greater prairie chicken.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review the application may obtain a copy 
by writing to the Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, New Mexico 
87103. The request must be received by the Assistant Regional Director 
within 30 days of the date of this publication. Please refer to permit 
number PRT-814917 when submitting comments.
    Documents and other information submitted with this application are 
available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act 
and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written 
request for a copy of such documents to the above

[[Page 36078]]

office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Lynn B. Starnes,
Acting Regional Director, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 96-17397 Filed 7-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-55-P
### NUMBER 13 - 1 5 - 00 474 - CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ FRANK FIGUEROA , A ppellant ,
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 117 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Frank Figueroa , proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal on August 14, 2015. Appellant states he is appealing from an order dated July 29, 2 015. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdi ction. Appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentence was imposed on February 1, 2008. On June 25, 2015, appellant filed a motion for2

appointment of counsel to file a motion for forensic DNA testing for an indigent person. The State file d a response to the motion on July 29, 2015. On July 31, 2015, the trial court signed an order granting appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. The trial court entered an amended order on September 18, 2015, withdrawing the order of July 31, 2015 , and denying appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel. An appeal in a criminal case is permitted only when specifically authorized by
statute. State ex rel. Lykos v. Fine , 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011); see Bayless v. Sta te , 91 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) ( holding that the right of appeal “is a statutorily created right”); see also Apolinar v. State , 820 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (“The courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction to review
interlocuto ry orders unless that jurisdiction has been expressly granted by law.”). “The standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether the appeal is precluded by law, but whether the appeal is authorized by law.” Abbott v. State , 271 S.W.3d 694, 696

– 97 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008).
T he denial of a request for appointed counsel to assist in filing a motion for post

conviction DNA testing is not immediately appealable. Gutierrez v. State , 307 S.W.3d 318, 322

- 23 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). Any alleged error made by the trial court in refusing to appoint counsel must be raised in an appeal from the final order denying DNA testing. See id.
The clerk of the trial court has informed us that th e trial court has not entered an order denying post

- conviction forensic DNA testing. We are of the opinion that because there is not a final order denying a motion for DNA testing under Texas Code of Criminal3

Procedure article 64.01, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal . Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. Any pending motions are likewise dismissed for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b).
D elivered and filed the 17th day of December , 2015

.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DUANE ALLEN MILLS,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 08-14778

HONORABLE DENISE PAGE HOOD

BLAINE LAFLER,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER

DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR A CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, BUT

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

Petitioner Duane Allen Mills has appealed the Court’s denial of his habeas corpus

petition. Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s motions for a certificate of appealability,

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, and for appointment of appellate counsel.

“[A] prisoner seeking postconviction relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 has no automatic

right to appeal a district court’s denial or dismissal of the petition. Instead, [the] petitioner

must first seek and obtain a [certificate of appealability.]” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 327, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1034, 154 L. Ed. 2d 931 (2003). A certificate of appealability

may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

The Court concluded in its dispositive opinion that the trial court did not deprive

Petitioner of retained counsel of choice or effective assistance of counsel and that the

2:08-cv-14778-DPH-MKM Doc # 27 Filed 08/09/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 858
2

prosecutor’s conduct was either proper or not so egregious as to render the trial

fundamentally unfair. The Court also concluded that Petitioner’s trial attorney was not

ineffective, that Petitioner’s sentencing claims did not warrant habeas relief, and that

Petitioner’s appellate attorney was not ineffective for failing to raise all of Petitioner’s

habeas claims on direct review. 

Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s assessment of Petitioner’s claims

debatable or wrong, nor conclude that Petitioner’s claims deserve encouragement to

proceed further. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 1603-04, 146

L. Ed. 2d 542 (2000). Consequently, Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability

[Docket No. #24, filed July 25, 2011] and his motion for appointment of counsel [Docket No.

25, filed July 25, 2011] are DENIED. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

[Docket No. 23, filed July 25, 2011] is GRANTED, because the issues are not frivolous, and

an appeal could be taken in good faith. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 

s/Denise Page Hood 

United States District Judge

Dated: August 9, 2011

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon Duane Mills

#507328, 10274 Boyer Road, Carson City, MI 48811 and counsel of record on August 9,

2011, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14778-DPH-MKM Doc # 27 Filed 08/09/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 859
H. Res. 961 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

December 10, 2009. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 

the bill (H.R. 3288) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes. The conference report shall be considered as read. All points of order against 

the conference report and against its consideration are 

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 

on the conference report to its adoption without intervening 

motion except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) one motion 

to recommit. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Schedule of Omitted Documents



 Exhibit 10.6 

Schedule of Omitted Documents 

of CNL Healthcare Properties, Inc. 

The following management agreements have not been filed as an exhibit pursuant to Instruction 2 of Item 601 of Regulation S-K; these
documents are substantially identical in all material respects to Exhibit 10.1 to this Form 8-K: 
  

	 	1.	Management Agreement dated as of March 28, 2014, by and between CHP Springs TX Tenant Corp. and Jerry Erwin Associates, Inc. (d/b/a JEA Senior Living) 


 

	 	2.	Management Agreement dated March 28, 2014, by and between CHP Park at Plainfield IL Tenant Corp. and Harbor Plainfield Management, LLC. 


The following mortgage agreements have not been filed as an exhibit pursuant to Instruction 2 of Item 601 of Regulation S-K; these
document are substantially identical in all material respects to Exhibit 10.4 to this Form 8-K: 
  

	 	1.	Deed of Trust, Assignment of Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing dated as of March 28, 2014, by CHP Springs TX Owner, LLC to Deborah Newman for the benefit of KeyBank National Association.


  

	 	2.	Mortgage, Assignment of Rents, Security Agreement and Fixture Filing (Park at Plainfield) dated as of March 28, 2014, made by CHP Park at Plainfield IL Owner, LLC for the benefit of KeyBank National Association.



  
 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America

Plaintiff,

v.

Andrew Padilla, et al.,

Defendant.

CR 18-00422-06-PHX-DJH

O R D E R

Upon the motion of the Defendant Andrew Padilla for his counsel to appear by telephone

at the hearing set for May 22, 2023 at 11:00 a.m. in the matter of the Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss Superseding Indictment (Doc. 1557), good cause appearing.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the Defendant’s motion (Doc. ) for the reasons

stated in the motion and allowing counsel to appear by telephone at a number to be set by the

Court.

DATED 

 

 Diane J. Humetewa

 United States District Judge

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1581-1 Filed 05/05/23 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-21266

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OSCAR MEJIA-DIAZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-01-CR-514-ALL

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

October 29, 2002

Before DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Oscar Mejia-Diaz (Mejia) argues that the district court

plainly erred in failing to verify that he had read and discussed

the presentence report (PSR) with his counsel as required by FED.

R. CRIM. P. 32(c)(3)(A). A review of the sentencing hearing

transcript reflects that the district court did not ascertain

whether Mejia had read and reviewed the PSR with counsel.

Because Mejia did not object to the omission in the district

court, this court could “correct the error only if the error was
No. 01-21266

-2-

plain and affected [Mejia’s] substantial rights.” United States

v. Esparza-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d 272, 274 (5th Cir. 2001), cert.

denied, 122 S. Ct. 1547 (2002).

Although FED. R. CRIM. P. 32 has not been interpreted as

creating an absolute requirement that the district court

specifically ask a defendant whether he has read the PSR, see

id., the record does not raise a reasonable inference that Mejia

personally reviewed the report and discussed it with counsel. 

However, Mejia has not shown that the error affected his

substantial rights. Mejia has not argued that he did not read

and review the PSR. Nor has he demonstrated the existence of

factual inaccuracies in the PSR that, if successfully challenged,

would have resulted in his receiving a lesser sentence. Because

Mejia has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by the district

court’s failure to strictly comply with FED. R. CRIM. P. 32, he

has failed to demonstrate plain error. See id. The sentence

imposed is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**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 China Discovery Acquisition Corp. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 (the “Report”), as
      filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I Beatrice
      Hom, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.






Dated:
      May 15, 2008




By : 
      /s/ Beatrice Hom


Beatrice
      Hom


Chief
      Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer


(Principal
      Accounting and Financial Officer)






-
      20 -
EX-10.18



 Exhibit 10.18 

ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE 

This Assignment of Agreement of Purchase and Sale (the “Assignment”) is made and entered into as of March 24, 2014, by
and between RREEF AMERICA L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignor”) and RPT 1109 COMMERCE BOULEVARD, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Assignee”), with reference to the
following facts: 
 Assignor, as Purchaser, and DP 1109 Commerce LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as Seller (“Seller”),
have entered into that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated as of March 12, 2014 (the “Purchase Agreement”), for the purposes of Assignor acquiring from Seller certain real property located at 1109 Commerce Boulevard, in
Logan Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey, as more particularly described in the Purchase Agreement. Assignor now desires to assign to Assignee all of its rights and obligations under the Purchase Agreement, pursuant to the terms and conditions
set forth herein. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1. As of the date hereof, Assignor hereby assigns, conveys, transfers and delivers to Assignee all of the
Assignor’s right, title and interest in and to the Purchase Agreement. 
 2. Assignee hereby agrees to expressly assume, perform, and be
subject to all the terms, covenants, conditions and obligations imposed upon Assignor under the Purchase Agreement. 
 3. Notwithstanding
anything herein to the contrary, Assignor has not been released from, and shall remain fully liable to Seller for, all pre-closing obligations pursuant to the terms of the Purchase Agreement. Assignee’s assumption of Assignor’s obligations
under the Purchase Agreement shall entitle Assignee to the benefit of and the right to enforce Seller’s covenants, representations and warranties under the Purchase Agreement as if Assignee was the original Purchaser (as defined in the Purchase
Agreement) thereunder. Assignor and Assignee both hereby represent and warrant to Seller that Assignee is permitted assignee without Seller’s consent as set forth in Section 13.1 of the Purchase Agreement. 

4. This Assignment shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the legal representatives, heirs, and permitted successors and assigns
of the parties hereto and shall be governed by the laws of the State of New Jersey. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Assignment as of the day and year first above
written. 
  

			
	ASSIGNOR:
	
	RREEF AMERICA L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Terence P. Callahan

		 	Name: Terence P. Callahan
		 	Title: Vice President – Transactions
	
	ASSIGNEE:
	
	RPT 1109 COMMERCE BOULEVARD, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
		
	By:	 	 /s/ James N. Carbone

		 	Name:James N. Carbone
		 	Title: President



  
 -2-
EXHIBIT 32.1  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  In connection with the quarterly report of Tara Minerals Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended April 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Francis Richard Biscan, the Principal Executive Officer of the Company, and Clifford A. Brown, the Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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 operation of the company.   Date:   June 6, 2008 /s/ Francis Richard Biscan Francis Richard Biscan, Principal Executive  Officer   Date:   June 6, 2008 /s/ Clifford A. Brown Clifford A. Brown, Principal Financial Officer