alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered December 2, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00218-CR

DARREN DWYONE GREEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-62506-K

ORDER

The reporter’s record was originally due in this appeal on April 7, 2013. After abating 

the appeal for findings, on September 18, 2013, we ordered court reporter Janice Garrett to file 

the reporter’s record by November 1, 2013. We warned Ms. Garrett that if she did not file the 

record by that date, we would order that she not sit as a court reporter until she files the record in 

this appeal. When the record was not filed by November 8, 2013, we ordered Janice Garrett to 

file the reporter’s record by November 19, 2013. We further ordered that Janice Garrett not sit 

as a court reporter until she files the record in this appeal.

The Court now has before it Ms. Garrett’s November 26, 2013 request for an extension 

until January 17, 2013 to file the record in this appeal. She states that her workload and a 

medical condition require this extension.
The Court DENIES the November 26, 2013 request for an extension until January 17, 

2013 to file the record. We ORDER Janice Garrett, official court reporter of the Criminal 

District Court No. 4, to file the reporter’s record in this appeal by DECEMBER 13, 2013. Ms. 

Garrett may make any necessary arrangements for assistance in transcribing the record. 

However, she remains responsible for filing the complete record in this appeal.

We further ORDER that Janice Garrett not sit as a court reporter until she has filed the 

record in this appeal.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Dominique Collins, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 4; Janice Garrett, 

official court reporter, Criminal District Court No. 4; to counsel for all parties; and to the Dallas 

County Auditor’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00241-CV

BILREYNA MOORE,

Appellant

v.

THE HARTNETT LAW FIRM,

Appellee

From the 13th District Court

Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court No. D14-23554-CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Bilreyna Moore, filed her notice of appeal on July 22, 2016, challenging 

the trial court’s Final Judgment in favor of appellee, The Hartnett Law Firm. The required 

docketing statement was not received. See TEX. R. APP. P. 32.1. On August 26, 2016, we 

sent a letter explaining that the docketing statement must be filed and warning that the 

Court would dismiss the appeal if a docketing statement was not filed within twenty-one 

days. See id. at R. 42.3(c).
Moore v. The Hartnett Law Firm Page 2

More than twenty-one days have passed, and we have not received the docketing 

statement.1 Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See id. at R. 32.1, 42.3(c); see also Hensley 

v. W.M. Specialty Mortgage, LLC, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 9614, at **1-2 (Tex. App.—Waco 

Nov. 16, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing a case for failure to file a docketing 

statement).

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed December 14, 2016

[CV06] 

 

1 The record also reflects that appellant has not made arrangements to pay for the Clerk’s and 

Reporter’s Records. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3. On August 30, 2016, we informed appellant that her appeal 

would be dismissed within twenty-one days after the date of the letter if she did not pay or make 

arrangements to pay for the records. On September 27, 2016, more than twenty-one days after our August 

30, 2016 letter, appellant filed a motion for extension of time to file the record, requesting a thirty-day 

extension and asserting that the parties had entered into a verbal settlement of the claims at issue. On 

October 4, 2016, we granted appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the record and ordered that the 

record be filed by October 31, 2016. We have received no response to our October 4, 2016 order. 

Additionally, on November 8, 2016, we requested an update from appellant regarding the purported 

settlement of this case. In our November 8, 2016 letter, we informed appellant that this case would be 

dismissed if a response was not filed within twenty-one days. See id. at R. 42.3(b)-(c), 44.3. Like before, 

appellant did not respond to our request for a status update regarding settlement. Accordingly, in addition 

to the failure to file the docketing statement, this case could also be dismissed for a failure to respond to 

this Court’s orders or for want of prosecution for failing to pay or make arrangements to pay for the record. 

See id. at R. 42.3(b)-(c).
EXHIBIT 31(a)

I, Thomas M. Patrick, certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Peoples Energy Corporation;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.	The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: February 9, 2004

/s/ Thomas M. Patrick
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency 

          - [FEMA-1766-DR] 

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana (FEMA-1766-DR), dated June 8, 2008, and related determinations. 

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         August 8, 2008.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Indiana is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 8, 2008. 

Wayne County for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance and emergency protective measures [Category B], limited to direct Federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.) 

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison, 

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E8-19023 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
----

----

| Date: May 13, 2013 | /s/ Jerry Kieliszak                               |
|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|               | Jerry Kieliszak                                   |
|               | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

----

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<MULTIPLIER>   1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         213,797
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,372
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     39,385
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               344,631
<PP&E>                                       4,653,041
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,590,342
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 464,463
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          798,188
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                       159,720
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (493,445)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   464,463
<SALES>                                        393,725
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               401,744
<CGS>                                          342,863
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  342,863
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               168,973
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,373
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (118,796)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (118,796)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (118,796)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 20-1652

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v. Robert Phillip Ivers lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________ Submitted: September 21, 2021 Filed: September 27, 2021 [Unpublished]

____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. While on supervised release for threatening to murder a federal judge, see 18 U.S.C. § 115(a)(1)(B), and for communicating by interstate transmission a threat to injure the person of another, see id. § 875(c), Robert Ivers, without permission from the court or his probation officer, knowingly left the judicial district (North Dakota)where he was residing. The district court 1 therefore revoked his supervised release

and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment and thirty months' supervised release. As a condition of release, the court ordered Ivers to reside for 180 days in a North Dakota residential reentry center. Ivers asserts that the court abused its discretion in imposing this condition. Since the filing of this appeal, the court has revoked Ivers's supervised release yet again and entered a new judgment against him, which Ivers challenges in another appeal. See United States v. Ivers , No. 20-3422 (8th Cir. 2020). Because Ivers is no longer serving the sentence that he challenges in this appeal it is moot, and so we have no jurisdiction over it. See United States v. Drews , 695 F. App'x 174, 175 (8th Cir. 2017) (unpublished per curiam); see also Burton v. Stewart , 549 U.S. 147, 156 (2007) (per curiam). Appeal dismissed.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Robert R. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa, sitting by designation in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. -2-
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6306 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for a definition of ‘‘disaster-related emergency’’ for purposes of the Department of Defense 

excess personal property program, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 16, 2021 

Mr. JACKSON (for himself, Mr. NEHLS, Mr. PFLUGER, Mr. TONY GONZALES

of Texas, Mr. ARRINGTON, Mr. FALLON, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Mr. 

ELLZEY, Mr. SESSIONS, and Mr. TAYLOR) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services, and in addition 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to 

be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide for a 

definition of ‘‘disaster-related emergency’’ for purposes 

of the Department of Defense excess personal property 

program, and for other purposes. 

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


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6306 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Providing Our Law 

3 Enforcement with Adequate Resources for a Response 

4 Act’’ or the ‘‘POLAR Response Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF DISASTER-RELATED EMERGENCY 

6 UNDER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXCESS 

7 PERSONAL PROPERTY PROGRAM. 

8 (a) DEFINITION OF DISASTER-RELATED EMER9 GENCY.—Subsection (g) of section 2576a of title 10, 

10 United States Code, is amended— 

11 (1) in the subsection heading, by striking 

12 ‘‘CONTROLLED PROPERTY’’ and inserting ‘‘DEFINI13 TIONS’’; 

14 (2) by striking ‘‘In this section,’’ and inserting 

15 ‘‘In this section:’’; 

16 (3) by redesignating the text beginning with 

17 ‘‘the term’’ and ending with ‘‘document.’’ as para18 graph (1) and adjusting the margins accordingly; 

19 (4) in paragraph (1), as so redesignated, by 

20 striking ‘‘the term’’ and inserting ‘‘The term’’; and 

21 (5) by adding at the end the following new 

22 paragraph: 

23 ‘‘(2) The term ‘disaster-related emergency’ 

24 means any event with respect to which the President 

25 declares an emergency or major disaster pursuant to 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6306 IH

1 the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emer2 gency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).’’. 

3 (b) INCLUSION OF POLAR VORTEX IN DEFINITION

4 OF MAJOR DISASTER.—Section 102(2) of the Robert T. 

5 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act 

6 (42 U.S.C. 5122(2)) is amended by inserting ‘‘, polar vor7 tex’’ after ‘‘mudslide’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Byron J. SWAN, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. George SMITH; J. Robles, Program Administrator; R. Emerson; J. Tucker, Senior Librarian; A. Nappi; F.A. Rodriguez, Lieutenant; N.D. Nason, Correctional Officer; L. Echeverría, Asst Warden, Chief Deputy Warden; P. Kenney, Correctional Officer; G. Durham, Correctional Officer; James Gomez; T. Loftin; G.B. Garibay; S.C. Fletcher; L.J. Otoole; Bruce Streeter; D. Mayle; M. Meske; E. Glaster, Defendants — Appellees.

No. 00-17072.

D.C. No. CV-95-05839-OWW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 11, 2002.*

Decided Nov. 6, 2002.

Before BALDOCK,** KLEINFELD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

**

 The Honorable Bobby R. Baldock, Senior United States Court of Appeals Judge for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM***

In his complaint, plaintiff-appellant Byron Swan asserted three claims. The district court granted summary judgment against Swan on all his claims and he now appeals. We review the grant of summary judgment de novo1 and affirm.

First, Swan claimed that defendants subjected him to physical force that rose to a constitutional violation under the Eighth Amendment. The use of force against a prisoner violates the Eighth Amendment only where the quantum of force used is more than de minimis in nature.2 Only where the alleged deprivation is objectively both sufficiently serious and the official has a sufficiently culpable state of mind will an Eighth Amendment violation occur.3 Here, Swan only claimed soreness resulting from the alleged use of force requiring no medical treatment. As the use of force and injury to Swan was de minimis, no Eighth Amendment violation occurred.

Second, Swan claimed that defendants conducted retaliatory searches of his cell. In the prison context, a cognizable retaliation claim requires a prisoner to allege that the retaliatory action didn’t serve a legitimate penological purpose.4 Although Swan claims that searching his cell was retaliatory, Swan concedes in his deposition that prison officials searched *all*the prisoners’s cells following an attack on a guard.5 A search for evidence of a crime or contraband is for a legitimate penologi*363cal purpose; summary judgment was appropriate.

Finally, Swan asserts that defendants failed to give him heightened notice of summary judgment as required by *Rand.**6***Swan’s claim is without merit. The record clearly establishes that the defendants provided Swan with notice of their motion of summary judgment, his obligation to respond, and the deadline for a response.7 This notice was sufficient.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. *See Oliver v. Keller,*289 F.3d 623, 626 (9th Cir.2002).

2

. *Id.*at 628.

3

. *McKinney v. Anderson,*959 F.2d 853, 854 (9th Cir.1992).

4

. *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994).

5

. S.E.R. at 29-34.

6

. *Rand v. Rowland,*154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998).

7

. S.E.R. at 147-49.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Cornelius Milan Harper v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-14-00641-CR

Trial court case number: 11-DCR-056513

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

The reporter’s record on this appeal was originally due August 18, 2014. 71 volumes of 

the record have previously been filed by two of the three reporters in the trial court.

Rachel Gamez, one of the court reporters in this case, has moved for an extension to 

April 2, 2015 to file her portion of the record. Previous extensions granted to the reporter stated 

no further extensions would be considered. We DENY the motion. See TEX. R. APP. P.

10.5(b)(1)(C) (requiring motions for extension of time to state facts relied on to 

reasonably explain need for extension), 35.3(c) (requiring courts to ensure that appellate 

record is timely filed). We ORDER the court reporter, or her substitute, to file the 

record within 14 days of the date of this order. If the record is not filed within 14 days of 

the date of this order, we may require Rachel Gamez to appear and show cause why the 

record has not been filed. 

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: __/s/ Harvey Brown

X Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: March 5, 2015