alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Andrew Hayward Jackson, Jr. v. Fort Bend County, Fort Bend County Drainage District, Fort Bend County Emergency Service District No. 7, Fort Bend County Fresh Water Supply District No. 01, Fort Bend County General Fund, and Fort Bend County Independent School District

Appellate case number: 01

- 2 2

- 00 880

- CV

Trial court case number: 21

- DCV

- 282688

Trial court: 2 40 th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellant, Andrew Hayward Jackson, Jr. , filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s October 25, 2022 final judgment. On December 19, 2022, a ppellant filed a “Motion

for Leave to Proceed I n Forma Pauperis,” requesting that he be permitted to proceed on appeal without payment of costs. Appellant’s motion does not state whether he was permitted to proceed without payment of costs in the trial court; nor does appellant’s motion reflect that he filed an affidavit of indigence or Statement of Inability to P ay Costs

in the trial court

. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 145; T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(b).

Appellant’s motion filed with this Court similarly does not include a Statement of Inability to Pay Costs, or any other evidence of indigency

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(c). Absent evidence that appellant was permitted to proceed without payment of costs in the trial court, or a completed Statement of Inability to Pay Costs, we are unable to determine whether appellant should be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

.
Accordingly, appellant’s “Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis” is

denied . However, this order does not prevent appellant from re

- filing his request to proceed without payment of costs along with (1) evidence that he was permitted to proceed without payment of costs in the trial court, or (2) a completed Statement of Inability to Pay Costs, establishing his indigency. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(b), (c).It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ____

/s/ April Farris

________  Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: ___ January 5, 2023

_____
Exhibit E 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 193-5 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:12-cv-00654 Document 4-3 Filed 06/27/12 Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 238
Case 3:12-cv-00654 Document 4-3 Filed 06/27/12 Page 3 of 35 PageID #: 239
Case 3:12-cv-00654 Document 4-3 Filed 06/27/12 Page 4 of 35 PageID #: 240
Case 3:12-cv-00654 Document 4-3 Filed 06/27/12 Page 5 of 35 PageID #: 241
Case 3:12-cv-00654 Document 4-3 Filed 06/27/12 Page 6 of 35 PageID #: 242
Case 3:12-cv-00654 Document 4-3 Filed 06/27/12 Page 7 of 35 PageID #: 243
Case 3:12-cv-00654 Document 4-3 Filed 06/27/12 Page 8 of 35 PageID #: 244
Case 3:12-cv-00654 Document 4-3 Filed 06/27/12 Page 9 of 35 PageID #: 245
Case 3:12-cv-00654 Document 4-3 Filed 06/27/12 Page 10 of 35 PageID #: 246
Opinion issued September 21, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-23-00388-CR

———————————

JAMES CARABALLO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 208th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1649354

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, James Caraballo, appealed the trial court’s May 17, 2023 final 

judgment. On September 5, 2023, appellant’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss the

appeal, stating that appellant had provided “explicit, written permission to dismiss 

[]his appeal,” and requesting that “this Court dismiss the appeal.” 
2

Appellant and his attorney have signed the motion, and this Court has not 

issued a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a). Further, more than ten days have 

passed, and the State has not expressed opposition to appellant’s motion. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 10.3(a)(2).

Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Farris.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1162 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1162

  To require notification of the Federal Aviation Administration with 
          respect to wildlife strikes, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 2, 2009

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To require notification of the Federal Aviation Administration with 
          respect to wildlife strikes, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Wildlife Strike Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT WITH RESPECT TO WILDLIFE STRIKES ON 
              AIRCRAFT.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 44730. Notification of wildlife strikes
    ``The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall be 
notified, by the most expeditious means available--
            ``(1) by the operator of a civil aircraft or a public 
        aircraft (other than a public aircraft operated by the armed 
        forces or by an intelligence agency of the United States), if 
        the aircraft collides with 1 or more birds or other wildlife;
            ``(2) by airport personnel or personnel of the operator of 
        an aircraft described in paragraph (1), if such personnel see 
        such a collision; and
            ``(3) by aircraft maintenance personnel, if such personnel 
        identify damage to an aircraft resulting from such a 
        collision.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 447 of 
title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following:

``44730. Notification of wildlife strikes.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 10.24



VIA MAIL AND E-MAIL  rnichols@sunamericanbank.com

March 5, 2007



Mr. Robert Nichols

Executive Vice President

And Chief Financial Officer

Sun American Bank

1200 N. Federal Highway

Suite 111

Boca Raton, FL 33432



Re: Federal Funds Purchased Liquidity Facility



Dear Rob:



Upon review of your banks performance, IBB is pleased to increase the overnight Federal Funds Purchased Accommodation in favor of Sun American Bank to a maximum of $10,000,000 unsecured, allowing you to purchase funds at our daily federal funds purchased rate.



This facility is subject to market conditions and ongoing financial analysis of your banks quarterly Call Reports, which you should furnish us should IBB request it by either mail or phone. The facility does not represent a contractual obligation of IBB.



As you are aware, this is a liquidity facility for short term use. If you need core deposits or long term borrowings, we would encourage your discussing your funding situation with us to explore possible alternatives.



We look forward to meeting your ongoing needs as they arise.



|                               |  |                              
|------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Very truly yours,              |  | Acknowledged and Accepted By:
|                               |  |                              
|                               |  |                              
|/s/ M. Donald Streaker         |  |                              
|M. Donald Streader             |  | /s/ Robert Nichols           
|Vice President                 |  | Name & Title                 
|Correspondent Lending Services |  |                              
|                               |  |                              
|MDS/sv                         |  | March 8, 2007                
|                               |  | Date
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed February 27, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-01542-CV

RACHAEL STOKES, Appellant

V.

CLARK W. STEFFENS, D.D.S., Appellee

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13-04728

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Wright, and Justices Lang-Miers and Brown 

Opinion by Justice Brown

The clerk’s record in this case is overdue. By letter dated December 4, 2013, we 

informed appellant that the District Clerk had notified the Court that the clerk’s record had not 

been filed because appellant had not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. 

We directed appellant to file written verification that she had paid for or made arrangements to 

pay for the clerk’s record or that she had been found entitled to proceed without payment of 

costs. We cautioned appellant that if she did not file the required documentation within ten days, 

we might dismiss the appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not provided the 

required documentation or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the 

clerk’s record.
–2–

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b).

131542F.P05

/Ada Brown/

ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

RACHAEL STOKES, Appellant

No. 05-13-01542-CV V.

CLARK W. STEFFENS, D.D.S., Appellee

On Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13-04728.

Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Chief 

Justice Wright and Justice Lang-Miers 

participating.

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

It is ORDERED that appellee CLARK W. STEFFENS, D.D.S. recover his costs of this 

appeal from appellant RACHAEL STOKES.

Judgment entered this 27th day of February, 2014.

/Ada Brown/

ADA BROWN

JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16
- 7605

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Petitioner

- Appellee ,

v. JAMES DOW VANDIVERE , Respondent

- Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Caroli na, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. ( 5:15

- hc

- 02017

- D )

Submitted : April 9, 2018 Decided: July 5, 2018

Before TRAXLER, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion

. Michael W. Patrick, LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL W. PATRICK, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., United States Attorney, G. Norman Acker, III, Michael Bredenberg, Assistant United States Attorneys, OFFICE O F THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Dow Vandivere appeals from the district court’s order and judgment committing him to the custod y of the Attorney General pursuant to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (“Adam Walsh Act”), 18 U.S.C. § 4248 (2012), as a sexually dangerous person. Vandivere argues on appeal that the district court erred in denying his motion to dis miss the commitment proceeding because the Government certified him as sexually dangerous in violation of the plain language of the four

- year, catch

- all statute of limitations set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a) (2012). * The statute of limitations set forth in § 1658(a), however, does not apply to limit the time in which the Government must initiate a civil commitment proceeding under the Adam Walsh Act. United States v. Searcy , 880 F.3d 116, 124

- 25 (4th Cir. 2018). Se arcy thus forecloses Vandivere’s argument that the district court reversibly erred in denying his motion to
dismiss.
Vandivere also has filed three pro se supplemental briefs and motions seeking
leave to file his pro se briefs. We grant Vandivere’s mot ions seeking leave to file and
have considered all of the issues rais ed in his pro se briefs and conclude that they are
without merit . We deny Vandivere’s motion seeking leave to proceed pro se, to relieve appointed counsel, and to have this court conside r the issues raised in the first two pro se

* We deem abandoned Vandivere’s claim in the argument section of his opening brief asserting that the Government’s delay in certifying him as sexually dangerous made it “virtually impossible” for him to defend himself. See Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of t he Courts , 780 F.3d 562, 568 n.7 (4th Cir. 2015)

.3 briefs in place of those filed by counsel and affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this co urt and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED
JAMES T. MURZIKE

,

Appellant,

v.

SEC'T. DEPT. OF CORR.

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 15

- 0425

__ ___________________________/

Opinion filed April 15, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Leon County

. George S. Reynolds, III , Judge

.

James T. Murzike, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Sean W. Gellis, Assista nt Attorney

General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED

.

WOLF and RAY, J J

. , CONCUR. BENTON, J., CONCURS WITH OPINION.BENTON, J., CONCURRING.

I concur on the authority of Baldwin v. Crosby , 905 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1st

DCA 2005 ).

2
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-7157

WAYNE C. JEFFERSON,

Claimant-Appellant,

v.

ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Veterans Claims in 06-0268, Judge Alan G.

Lance, Sr.

ON MOTION

Before LOURIE, DYK, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

ORDER

Wayne C. Jefferson moves for reconsideration of the court's order dismissing his

appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion for reconsideration is denied.

FOR THE COURT

MAY - 7 2009

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk "Mlifiatipte

cc: Wayne C. Jefferson

Christopher a. Bowen, Esq.

s20

MAY 7 2009

Fwd liURS/ILY

CLERK
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 

 

 Having reviewed the Government’s Unopposed Motion to Designate Case 

Complex, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Government’s Motion to Designate Case 

Complex (Doc. 64) is granted.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a status conference for Monday, April 30, 

2018 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 501.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit a Joint Proposed Case 

Management Order no later than April 26, 2018 at 12:00 p.m.

 The Court finds excludable delay under Title 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) from 

to . 

 Dated this 19th day of April, 2018. 

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

United States of America, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Michael Lacey, et al. 

Defendants. 

 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CR-18-00422-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

 

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 107 Filed 04/19/18 Page 1 of 1
Circuit Court for Prince George’s County

Case No. CAE-12-40669

Argued: September 9, 2014

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

 OF MARYLAND

Misc. Docket AG No. 73

September Term, 2012

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION

 OF MARYLAND

v.

JOSEPH MUA KUM

Barbera, C.J.

Harrell

Battaglia

Greene

Adkins

McDonald

Watts,

 JJ.

PER CURIAM ORDER

Filed: September 10, 2014
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE * In the

COMMISSION OF MARYLAND

 * Court of Appeals

v. * of Maryland

 * Misc. Docket AG No. 73 

JOSEPH MUA KUM

 * September Term, 2012

 

 PER CURIAM ORDER

For reasons to be stated in an opinion later to be filed, it

is this 10th day September, 2014,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the

Respondent, Joseph Mua Kum, be, and he is hereby, disbarred,

effective immediately, from the further practice of law in the

State of Maryland; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of

Joseph Mua Kum from the register of attorneys, and pursuant to

Maryland Rule 16-760(e), shall certify that fact to the Trustees of

the Client Protection Fund and the clerks of all judicial tribunals

in the State; and it is further

ORDERED that respondent shall pay all costs as taxed by the

Clerk of this Court, including the costs of all transcripts,

pursuant to Maryland Rule 16-761(b), for which sum judgment is

entered in favor of the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland

against Joseph Mua Kum. 

 /s/ Mary Ellen Barbera 

 Chief Judge
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PREMIER SALES & MARKETING, INC.,

 Case No. 09-CV-10610

Plaintiff,

PAUL D. BORMAN

-vs- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

PEIKER ACUSTIC, INC., R. STEVEN WHALEN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendant. 

_______________________________/

ORDER

(1) ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

(DKT. NO. 45); and 

(2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AT THIS STAGE OF

THE PROCEEDINGS (DKT. NO. 24)

Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s February 16, 2010 Report and Recommendation

(Dkt. No. 45) denying Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration (Dkt. No. 24). Neither party has

filed timely objections under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich L.R. 72.1(d). Having reviewed

the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of fact and discussion of law, the Court hereby:

(1) ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 45); and

(3) DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Compel Arbitration at this stage of the proceedings.

(Dkt. No. 24). 

SO ORDERED.

S/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 24, 2010
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Copies of this Order were served on the attorneys of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on

March 24, 2010.

S/Denise Goodine 

Case Manager
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.01


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


The Board of Directors of
Interwoven, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-54250, 333-110586, 333-87186, 333-88725, 333-39914, 333-42690,
333-46662 and 333-49926) on Forms S-8 of Interwoven, Inc. of our reports dated
March 15, 2005 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Interwoven,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive
loss, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 2004, and the related financial statement schedule, management's
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as
of December 31, 2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting as of December 31, 2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004
annual report on Form 10-K of Interwoven, Inc.

Our report contains an explanatory paragraph that refers to the Company's
adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, "Goodwill and
Other Intangible Assets," on January 1, 2002.

/s/    KPMG LLP

Mountain View, California
March 15, 2005
#### STOCKWELL LAND TRUST, et al., Appellant, v. John FAY, Respondent.

No. WD 52378.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Oct. 8, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 26,1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Jan. 21,1997.

Robert W. Wheeler, Keytesville, for appellant.

Terry M. Evans, Trenton, for respondent.

Before ELLIS, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Stockwell Land Trust appeals from the dismissal of its petition against respondents John Fay and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. Perceiving no jurisprudential value in a published opinion, we enter this summary order. However, the parties have been provided with a memorandum opinion explaining our decision.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

Dennis Guy Erdman,

Plaintiff, Case No. 08-14715

v. Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

City of Detroit, et. al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

ORDER ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DATED MAY 14, 2009 [#25] AND MAY 28, 2009 [#27]

This matter has come before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation dated May 14, 2009 [#25], and the Magistrate Judge's Report and

Recommendation dated May 28, 2009 [#27]. Being fully advised in the premises and having

reviewed the record and the pleadings, including both Report and Recommendations and any

objections thereto, the Court hereby ACCEPTS AND ADOPTS both Report and Recommendations.

It is further ordered that the motion to dismiss filed by the City of Detroit is hereby

GRANTED, the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Wayne County is hereby

GRANTED, and the case is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

s/Nancy G. Edmunds 

Nancy G. Edmunds

United States District Judge

Dated: August 28, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or

counsel of record on August 28, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer 

Case Manager

2:08-cv-14715-NGE-MKM Doc # 32 Filed 08/28/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 209