alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### NUMBER 13 - 1 5 - 00 113 - CV 

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

____________________________________________________________

IN THE INTEREST OF L .J.C.S., MINOR CHILD

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



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

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, April Cantu, attempted to perfect an appeal from a final order signed by the County Court at Law No. 5, Nueces County, Texas, in cause no. 2014

- FAM

- 60639

- 5

. Upon review of the documents before the Court, it appeared that there was no final, appealable judgment. On March 11, 2015 , t he Clerk of this Court notified appellant of this defect so that steps could be taken to correct the defect, if it could be done. See
T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.1, 42.3. Appellant was advised that, if the defect was not corrected2

within ten days from the date of receipt of th e notice, the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant failed to respond to the Court ’ s notice

. The Nueces County Clerk’s Office has informed this Court that no final judgment
has been entered in this case

. In terms of appellate jurisdiction, appellate courts only have jurisdiction to review final judgments and certain interlocutory orders identi fied by
statute. Lehmann v. Har

- Con Corp ., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant's failure to correct the defect in this matter, is of the opinion that the appeal should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a),(c). PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 16th day of April , 201 5

.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 13

- 00841

- CV
PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS LLC , Appellant

v. Norma Norma GUTIERREZ , Appellee From the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- CV

- 000 054

- D1 The Honorable Joe Lopez, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: February 19, 2014
DISMISSED The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal, stating that they have reached a settlement in the underlying cause. The motion is granted, and this appeal is dismissed. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(a); Caballero v. Heart of Tex. Pizza, LLC , 70 S .W.3d 180, 181 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2001, no pet.). Costs of appeal are taxed against the parties who incurred them. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(d).
PER CURIAM
#### Lemious TURNER, Isaac Grayson, Willie Ownes and A. R. Simpson, Appellants, v. NEGRO LONGSHOREMEN OF JACKSONVILLE, Inc., a Non-profit Corporation, Ira Corker, John Jackson, James Crump and Dave Kennedy, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

July 11, 1956.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 24, 1956.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 23, 2013 *

Decided January 23, 2013

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

JOHN DANIEL TINDER, Circuit Judge

No. 12

‐ 2750

GERALD ACE GUICE, JR.,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellant

,

v.

CHARLES R. WINKLER, et al.,

Defendants

‐ Appellees

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Illinois,

Western Division.

No. 12 C 50175

Philip G. Reinhard,

Judge

.

ORDER

Gerald Guice received a smaller share than expected from his father’s estate and

blames his probate lawyer. He sued the lawyer in state court, alleging that counsel had

committed malpractice by fabricating a gift from his father to other relatives of stock

certificates that otherwise would have been distributed to Guice. After losing that suit, NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

* The defendants were not served with process in the district court and are not

participating in this appeal. After examining the appellant’s brief and the record, we have

concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. Thus the appeal is submitted on the brief and

the record. See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 34(a)(2)(C).No. 12

‐ 2750 Page 2

Guice filed this action in federal court claiming that the presiding state judge, the defendant

probate attorney, and other lawyers involved in the malpractice litigation “conspired” to

prevent him from winning that case. Essentially he repeats his malpractice theory and adds

that the defendant judge not only ignored or misunderstood his evidence but also excluded

testimony from physicians that a head injury made it difficult for him to understand legal

issues.

The district court allowed Guice to file his complaint in forma pauperis but

dismissed it immediately as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Among other reasons,

the court cited the Rooker

‐ Feldman doctrine, see D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman

, 460 U.S. 462

(1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co.

, 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and the state judge’s absolute judicial

immunity. Guice did not appeal the dismissal but filed instead, more than a month after

entry of judgment, a motion that we construe as one under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b). See F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 4(a); Blue v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local Union 159

, 676 F.3d 579,

583–84 (7th Cir. 2012). The district court denied the motion, prompting this appeal.

In this court Guice argues the merits of his civil

‐ rights lawsuit, but an appeal from

the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is not a means to challenge the underlying decision.

See Blue

, 676 F.3d at 584; Tango Music, LLC v. DeadQuick Music, Inc.

, 348 F.3d 244, 247 (7th

Cir. 2003). Rule 60(b) is an extraordinary remedy, Wills v. Lepine

, 687 F.3d 826, 833 (7th Cir.

2012); Bakery Mach. & Fabrication, Inc. v. Traditional Baking, Inc.

, 570 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir.

2009), and Guice does not assert any basis for relief specified in that rule.

AFFIRMED.
#### POULAN v. GALLAGHER.

No. 4449.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

June 5, 1933.

Theus, Grisham, Davis & Leigh of Monroe, for appellant.

W. A. Walker, Jr., of Monroe, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

The attorneys for defendant and appellant urge that a rehearing should be granted in this case, which is one sounding in damages, because of the allowance of interest, which was not prayed for, on the judgment from date of judicial demand.

This interest was correctly allowed on the authority of Act No. 206 of 1916 as construed in the case of Grennon v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 17 La. App. 700, 136 So. 309, which holds that interest automatically becomes due on judgment for damages from date of judicial demand, though not prayed for or mentioned in the judgment.

The application for a rehearing is refused.
Exhibit 11

                           PIPER JAFFRAY COMPANIES INC.

                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                     (In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)
                                   (Unaudited)

                                       Three Months Ended     Nine Months Ended
                                             June 30,              June 30,
                                      --------------------  --------------------
                                        1997       1996       1997       1996
                                      ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
PRIMARY NET INCOME PER SHARE:
Net income (loss)                     $  6,593   $ (1,514)  $ 15,882   $  2,846
                                      =========  =========  =========  =========

Average number of common and common 
  equivalent shares outstanding:
  Average common shares outstanding     18,673     18,140     18,540     17,875
  Dilutive effect of common stock
  equivalents:
    Book value plan options                142          -        154        184
    Executive incentive stock options      557          -        431        268
                                      ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
                                        19,372     18,140     19,125     18,327

Primary net income (loss) per share   $    .34   $   (.08)  $    .83   $    .16
                                      =========  =========  =========  =========

NET INCOME PER SHARE ASSUMING
   FULL DILUTION:
Net income (loss)                     $  6,593   $ (1,514)  $ 15,882   $  2,846
                                      =========  =========  =========  =========

Average number of common and common 
  equivalent shares outstanding:
  Average common shares outstanding     18,673     18,140     18,540     17,875
  Dilutive effect of common stock
  equivalents:
    Book value plan options                149          -        171        184
    Executive incentive stock options      648          -        648        268
                                      ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
                                        19,470     18,140     19,359     18,327

Fully Diluted net income (loss)
 per share                            $    .34   $   (.08)  $    .82   $    .16
                                      =========  =========  =========  =========
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

HENRY ELMORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHARLOTTE A. BURROWS, UNITED 

STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, and JOHN 

DOES 1−10,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 21-2347 (JMC)

ORDER

For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and 42 

U.S.C. § 1981 are DISMISSED, as are all Defendants except Charlotte A. Burrows, who is 

named in her official capacity as Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission;

ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s surviving claims, ECF 6, is 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, as is Defendants’ Motion for a More Definite Statement

of those claims, id.; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that this civil action is TRANSFERRED to the United States 

District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

SO ORDERED.

DATE: October 13, 2022

 Jia M. Cobb

 U.S. District Court Judge
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7070 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act with respect 

to the types of milk offered under the school lunch program, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2022 

Ms. STEFANIK (for herself, Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS, Mr. JACOBS of New York, 

and Mr. GARBARINO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 

Act with respect to the types of milk offered under 

the school lunch 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, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting School Milk 

5 Choices Act of 2022’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7070 IH

1 SEC. 2. TYPES OF MILK OFFERED UNDER THE SCHOOL 

2 LUNCH PROGRAM. 

3 Section 9(a)(2)(A) of the Richard B. Russell National 

4 School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(2)(A)) is amend5 ed— 

6 (1) by striking clause (ii); 

7 (2) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); 

8 and 

9 (3) by inserting after clause (i) the following: 

10 ‘‘(ii) shall offer students flavored and 

11 unflavored fluid milk; 

12 ‘‘(iii) may offer students lactose-free 

13 fluid milk; and’’. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-63,898] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on August 19, 2008 in response to a worker petition filed by the state workforce office on behalf of workers at Magna Services of America, Inc., Troy, Michigan. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

      ( print page 51006)    
Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of August 2008. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. 

[FR Doc. E8-20038 Filed 8-28-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

August 9, 2019

Before

FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge

No. 18-3107

KIMBERLY BILINSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant

,

v

.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 16 C 4253

Virginia M. Kendall,
J udge

.

O R D E R

On consideration of the petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc , no judge in active service has requested a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc and all members of the original panel have voted to deny rehearing and to issue an amended opinion. This court’s opinion dated June 26, 2019, is amended in a separately filed opinion released today.

It is, therefore, ORDERED that rehearing and rehearing en banc are DENIED

.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Richard L. Markee, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-K of VS Holdings, Inc.; and

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.

Date: September 30, 2009



|    |  |                                     
|--- |  | ------------------------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Richard L. Markee               
|    |  | Richard L. Markee                   
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1995             SEP-06-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1994             DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-29-1995             SEP-06-1996
<CASH>                                          20,215                  14,995
<SECURITIES>                                    19,396                  20,091
<RECEIVABLES>                                  113,127                 129,429
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,881                   2,876
<INVENTORY>                                      2,516                   2,684
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               172,971                 180,245
<PP&E>                                          35,636                  40,317
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,619                  25,840
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 287,344                 296,595
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,746                  90,183
<BONDS>                                         34,275                  25,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                         15                       0
<COMMON>                                        74,471                  74,694
<OTHER-SE>                                      39,239                  47,098
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   287,344                 296,595
<SALES>                                        862,793                 608,450
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               862,793                 608,450
<CGS>                                          771,172                 533,716
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  771,172                 533,716
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                69,011                  56,860
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,719                     914
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,870                   1,663
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 18,021                  15,297
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,521                   7,510
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,500                   7,787
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.26                     .92
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.26                     .92
        

</TABLE>
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 Annual Report of All American Pet Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Schwartz,  and Principal 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.











/S/ Barry SchwartzBarry SchwartzChief Executive Officer
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6719 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 and the Water 

Resources Development Act of 1999 to provide assistance to non-Federal 

interests for water-related environmental infrastructure projects in northern and southern West Virginia, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2022 

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

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 

and the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 to 

provide assistance to non-Federal interests for waterrelated environmental infrastructure projects in northern 

and southern West Virginia, 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, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6719 IH

1 SEC. 1. SOUTHERN WEST VIRGINIA ENVIRONMENTAL RES2 TORATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND RE3 SOURCE PROTECTION DEVELOPMENT PILOT 

4 PROGRAM. 

5 Section 340(f) of the Water Resources Development 

6 Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4856) is amended by inserting 

7 ‘‘Gilmer, Mason, Putnam, Kanawha, Jackson, Roane, 

8 Clay, Wirt, Calhoun, Braxton, Pendleton,’’ before ‘‘Ra9 leigh’’. 

10 SEC. 2. NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA. 

11 Section 571 of the Water Resources Development Act 

12 of 1999 (113 Stat. 371) is amended— 

13 (1) in the section heading by striking ‘‘CEN14 TRAL’’ and inserting ‘‘NORTHERN’’; 

15 (2) by striking ‘‘central’’ and inserting ‘‘north16 ern’’ each place it appears; and 

17 (3) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the 

18 following: 

19 ‘‘(a) DEFINITION OF NORTHERN WEST VIRGINIA.— 

20 In this section, the term ‘northern West Virginia’ means 

21 the counties of Lewis, Upshur, Randolph, Hardy, Hamp22 shire, Morgan, Berkeley, Jefferson, Hancock, Ohio, Mar23 shall, Wetzel, Tyler, Pleasants, Wood, Doddridge, 

24 Monongalia, Marion, Harrison, Taylor, Barbour, Preston, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6719 IH

1 Tucker, Mineral, Grant, Brooke, and Ritchie, West Vir2 ginia.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 174 (Monday, September 8, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 52078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20757]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration


Notice of Informational Filing

    In accordance with Sec.  236.913 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad 
Administration (FRA) has received an informational filing from the 
Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) to permit field testing of the railroad's 
processor-based train control system. The informational filing is 
described below, including the requisite docket number where the 
informational filing and any related information may be found. The 
document is also available for public inspection; however, FRA is not 
accepting public comments.

Norfolk Southern Railway

[Docket Number FRA-2008-0083]

    NS has submitted an informational filing to FRA to permit field 
testing of the railroad's processor-based train control system 
identified as Optimized Train Control (OTC) Positive Train Control 
(PTC) System. The informational filing addresses the requirements under 
49 CFR 236.913(j)(1).
    Specifically, the informational filing contains a description of 
the NS OTC PTC product and an operational concepts document pursuant to 
49 CFR 236.913(j)(1). The NS OTC PTC system is designed to assist train 
crews in situational awareness, prevent authority limit and over-speed 
violations, provide open switch protection in non-signaled Track 
Warrant Control territory, and to prevent equipped trains from entering 
the limits without authorization of on-track authority granted to 
employees. NS desires to commence field testing on or after September 
1, 2008, or as soon as practicable thereafter, contingent upon FRA's 
acceptance and approval of their informational filing.
    Interested parties are invited to review the informational filing 
and associated documents at the DOT Docket Management facility during 
regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. All documents in the public docket 
are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written 
communications received into any of our dockets by name of the 
individual submitting the document (or signing the document, if 
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 3, 2008.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program 
Development.
[FR Doc. E8-20757 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
No. 72-1060.

#### Johnson *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.