alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS and Opinion Filed September 30, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-00182-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF M.G.M., A CHILD 

On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-19069 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Reichek, Nowell, and Carlyle 

Opinion by Justice Reichek 

Appellant’s brief in this appeal is overdue. After appellant failed to respond 

to our inquiry regarding the reporter’s record, we ordered the appeal submitted 

without the reporter’s record and for appellant’s brief to be filed by August 10, 2024. 

By postcard dated August 13, 2024, we informed appellant the brief was overdue 

and directed appellant to file a brief within ten days. We cautioned appellant that 

failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant has not filed a brief nor otherwise 

corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c). 

240182F.P05 

 

/Amanda L. Reichek/

AMANDA L. REICHEK 

JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF M.G.M., A 

CHILD 

No. 05-24-00182-CV 

 On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-20-19069. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Reichek. Justices Nowell and Carlyle 

participating. 

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

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered September 30, 2024
#### Max Kliger v. Samuel Rosenfeld.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Settle order on notice.
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4232

To designate the United States Post Office building located at 251 West

Lancaster Street in Fort Worth, Texas, as the ‘‘Jim Wright Post Office

Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 27, 1996

Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To designate the United States Post Office building located

at 251 West Lancaster Street in Fort Worth, Texas,

as the ‘‘Jim Wright Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. JIM WRIGHT POST OFFICE BUILDING.

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The United States Post Office

5 building located at 251 West Lancaster Street in Fort

6 Worth, Texas, is designated as the ‘‘Jim Wright Post Of7 fice Building’’.

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in any law, map,

9 regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United
2

•HR 4232 IH

1 States to the United States Post Office building referred

2 to in subsection (a) is deemed to be a reference to the

3 ‘‘Jim Wright Post Office Building’’.

Æ
#### Thomas MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 47713.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Feb. 8, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 29, 1994.

Lew Kollias, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from the dismissal of a Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4212

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain materials used in the manufacture

of skis and snowboards.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 26, 1996

Mr. MCDERMOTT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain materials used

in the manufacture of skis and snowboards.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON CERTAIN MATE4 RIALS.

5 (a) SPRING STEEL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following

8 new heading:
2

•HR 4212 IH

‘‘ 9902.72.17 L-shaped edges

of spring steel

for use in the

manufacture of

skis and

snowboards

(provided for in

subheading

7217.10.90) .... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/98 ’’.

1 (b) POLYETHYLENE BASE MATERIALS.—Subchapter

2 II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of

3 the United States is amended by inserting in numerical

4 sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.39.20 Polyethylene

base materials

that are sanded on 1 side

and surfacetreated for use

in the manufacture of skis

and

snowboards

(provided for

in subheading

3920.10.00) Free No change No change On or before

12/31/98 ’’.

5 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

6 The amendments made by section 1 apply to goods

7 entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption,

8 on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment

9 of this Act.

Æ
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 July 30, 2013

s0722

Order 

Clerk

July 30, 2013

147085

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147085

COA: 309730

Van Buren CC: 11-017609-FC

TOMMY LEE UNDERWOOD,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 12, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 19, 2019

No. 04-19-00451-CV

Celia Beatriz GARCIA,

Appellant

v.

Michael Anthony BENAVIDES,

Appellee

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Uvalde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-09-32349-CV

Honorable Ron Carr, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On March 22, 2019, the Honorable Ron Carr, sitting for the 38th Judicial District Court 

in Uvalde County, signed a default final decree of divorce. The decree appointed Michael 

Anthony Benavides and Ceila Beatriz Garcia Silva as joint managing conservators with 

Benavides given the exclusive right to designate the primary residence of the child M.A.B. 

Garcia filed a motion for new trial and a notice of appeal.

In a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in Bexar County, Benavides averred that the 

child was being illegally restrained by Garcia, and Benavides sought a writ of attachment for 

possession of the child. On August 9, 2019, the Honorable David A. Canales, the presiding 

judge of the 73rd District Court in Bexar County, issued the writ. 

On August 12, 2019, Garcia moved this court to issue emergency temporary orders 

granting her possession of the child and setting a hearing on the matter of possession. 

Garcia’s motion for emergency temporary orders is DENIED without prejudice to Garcia 

seeking appropriate relief from the trial court. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.001.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 19th day of August, 2019.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle,

Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOHNATHAN SAVAGE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 6 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 9th day of May, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1876

___________

Jerry K. Latture, *

*

Plaintiff-Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Remington Arms Company, Inc., a *

foreign corporation, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Defendant-Appellee. *

*

___________

Submitted: January 13, 2000

Filed: February 4, 2000

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, BRIGHT and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury found that defendant-appellee Remington Arms Company, Inc.

("Remington") did not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.

§§ 621-634 (1994), when it offered one of its maintenance planners, plaintiff-appellant

Jerry Latture, the option of leaving the company or accepting a lesser position for

substantially less pay. On appeal, Latture challenges a series of evidentiary decisions

made by the district court: Latture appeals the denial of his motion for a new trial

based on insufficient evidence to support the verdict, the admission of evidence of
–2–

complaints about Latture's job performance, and the exclusion of various remarks made

by employees of Remington, as well as evidence of the age of his eventual replacement.

We review a district court's admission, or exclusion, of evidence for a clear

abuse of discretion. Spencer v. Stuart Hall Co., Inc., 173 F.3d 1124, 1130 (8th Cir.

1999); King v. Ahrens, 16 F.3d 265, 268 (8th Cir. 1994). In addition, we review a

district court's denial of a motion for a new trial on grounds of insufficient evidence for

clear abuse of discretion, and we reverse "only where there is an 'absolute absence of

evidence' to support the jury's verdict." Porous Media Corp. v. Pall Corp., 173 F.3d

1109, 1123 (8th Cir. 1999) (quoting Pulla v. Amoco Oil Co., 72 F.3d 648, 657 (8th Cir.

1995). Upon a careful review of the record, we hold that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in deciding any of the issues now raised on appeal. Furthermore,

it is unlikely that different rulings on the admissibility of the evidence in question would

have altered the outcome of the trial. Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LAUREL OFFICE PARK LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP,

 

Plaintiff,

v.

CML INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

Defendant.

Case No. 09-13690

HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

______________________________/

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(b) FOR

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION [10]

Now before the Court is the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b) for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction [10]. 

The parties have fully briefed the issues raised in the motion. Pursuant to Local Rule

7.1(f)(2), the Court will decide this motion without oral argument. 

Upon review of the record, this Court makes the following findings:

Plaintiff correctly notes that the Sixth Circuit has concluded that “[a] court must not dismiss

an action for failure to meet the amount in controversy requirement unless it appears ‘to a legal

certainty that the claim is really for less than the jurisdictional amount.’” See Basicomputer Corp.

v. Scott, et al., 973 F.2d 507, 510 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab

Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938 )). Moreover, “It is well established that claims can be aggregated to

satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirement.” See Klepper v. First American Bank, 916 F.2d 337,

341 (6th Cir. 1990).

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint and response to Defendant’s motion make clear that Plaintiff is

bringing a claim for not only breach of contract seeking unpaid rent but also for fraud in the

inducement seeking damages for alleged misrepresentations Defendant made that induced Plaintiff

to enter into the parties’ agreement. Based on Plaintiff’s complaint and response, this Court is

satisfied that Plaintiff is seeking an aggregate amount of damages exceeding $75,000. It does not
2

appear “to a legal certainty” that the amount in controversy is less than the jurisdictional

requirement. Nothing has been offered to this Court to support such a finding. Moreover, the record

is void of any indication that Plaintiff has alleged damages exceeding $75,000 in bad faith as a ploy

to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule

12(b) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction [10] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED. 

s/Arthur J. Tarnow 

Senior United States District Judge

Dated: July 2, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on July

2, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/LaShawn R. Saulsberry 

Case Manager
##### 



Exhibit 99.4

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the use in Call-Net Enterprises Inc.sAnnual Report on
Form 40-F of our report dated February 13, 2004, except for note 21
which is at February 20, 2004, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Call-Net Enterprises Inc.for the fiscal years
ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001.





|                                                                                           |  |                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------
|Toronto, Canada,
February 13, 2004 [except for note 21
     which is at February 20, 2004] |  | /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
Chartered Accountants
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 153 (Thursday, August 7, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18333]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: 11 a.m., Friday August 15, 2008.

Place: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

Status: Closed.

Matters to be Considered: Surveillance Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Staff Assistant.
[FR Doc. E8-18333 Filed 8-5-08; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
Exhibit 21.1



LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                    |  |                              
|----------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Name of Subsidiary                  |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|1.      DSP Group Ltd.              |  | Israel                       
|                                    | 
|2.      Nihon DSP K.K.              |  | Japan                        
|                                    | 
|3.      RF Integrated Systems, Inc. |  | Delaware, U.S.               
|                                    | 
|4.      DSPG Edinburgh Ltd.         |  | Scotland                     
|                                    | 
|5.      DSP Video Korea Ltd.        |  | Korea
KENNETH DAVID LEBAY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

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. 1D15-3559

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 7, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Michael Jones, Judge.

Glenn M. Swiatek, Shalimar, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Anne C. Conley, Assistant Attorney 

General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 483-4 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 12839
2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 483-4 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 12840
2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 483-4 Filed 04/30/14 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 12841
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000915197
<NAME>                        HILITE INDUSTRIES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                   0
<SECURITIES>                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                   10,283,259
<ALLOWANCES>                      (195,427)
<INVENTORY>                     10,075,786
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                22,677,503
<PP&E>                          38,400,240
<DEPRECIATION>                 (12,077,533)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  57,219,177
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           14,348,795
<BONDS>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                    0
<PREFERRED>                              0
<COMMON>                            49,000
<OTHER-SE>                      21,954,554
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    57,219,177
<SALES>                         73,492,117
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                73,492,117
<CGS>                           63,938,186
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   74,277,908
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>               1,713,763
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (2,499,554)
<INCOME-TAX>                      (842,569)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (1,656,985)
<DISCONTINUED>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<CHANGES>                                0
<NET-INCOME>                    (1,656,985)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        (0.34)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (0.34)
        


</TABLE>
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43966

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

SCOTT GREGORY HAYES

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 718

Filed: October 4, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for attempted rape, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C.

Swinford , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before MEL ANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Scott Gregory Hayes pled guilty to attempted rape , Idaho Code §§ 18

- 6101(1), 18

- 306

. The district court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of

confinement of two years

. Hayes appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standa rd of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 I daho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing2

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Hayes ’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Exhibit 32

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Annual Report of Health Net, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Jay M. Gellert, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Joseph C.
Capezza, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of their respective knowledge:



| | (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.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Jay M. Gellert     
|Jay M. Gellert         
|Chief Executive Officer
|                       
|February 26, 2008      
|                       
|/s/ Joseph C. Capezza  
|Joseph C. Capezza      
|Chief Financial Officer
|                       
|February 26, 2008
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Peyton Ashley Simpson v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-12-00891-CR

Trial court case number: 28375

Trial court: County Court of Chambers County

This appeal was abated for the trial court to make findings of fact and conclusions of law 

regarding its denial of appellant’s motions to suppress. After the findings of fact and conclusions 

of law were filed in a supplemental record with the Clerk of this Court, the appeal was reinstated. 

In light of the recently filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, appellant is given until 30 

days after the date of this order to file supplemental briefing regarding his appellate challenges to 

the trial court’s denial of his motions to suppress. The State will have 30 days from the date that 

appellant’s brief is filed to file a supplemental brief in response.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura Carter Higley

Acting individually 

Date: October 1, 2013
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Angelo Ferrara, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. Nos. 50,667, 50,955.

First District, Second Division.

October 4, 1966.

*347Thomas O. Flack and Jay M. David, of Chicago, for appellant; Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and James S. Veldman, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE BURKE.

Not to be published in full.