alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 5/10/ 16 In re Isaiah G. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re ISAIAH G., a Person Coming Under

the Juvenile Court Law. 2d Juv. No. B269655

(Super. Ct. No. J070312)

(Ventu ra County)

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN

SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARCELLA G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Marcella G., the biological mother of Isaiah G., born 2014, appeals from

the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights and selecting adoption as the

permanent plan for Isaiah. (Welf & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) 1 We appointed counsel to

represent m other on appeal.

On March 25, 2016, m other's counsel filed a brief in which no arguable

issues were raised. On March 28, 2016, we notified m other that she had 30 days within

which to submit any contentions that she wished us to consider, and that the appeal would

be dismissed in the absence of any arguable issues. ( In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare & Institution s Code unless otherwise stated.2

835, 844

- 846; In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Mother timely responded with

a letter describing her love for Isaiah and her desire that he have a relationship with his

siblings. Mother has four older biological children who are the subjects of a permanent

g uardianship with their paternal grandmother in Los Angeles County. Her parental rights

to those children were terminated in December 2013.

Although we do not doubt m other's sincerity, her letter offers no basis for

us to reverse the juvenile court's or der. Mother forfeited application of either the

beneficial parental relationship exception (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) or the sibling

relationship exc eption (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B ) (v) ) because she did not appear at the

section 366.26 hearing and her counsel did not raise these issues on her behalf

. ( In re

S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293; In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 419

- 420 .)

Our review of the record discloses no substantial evidence that either exception would

apply in any event. ( In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315

- 1318.)

The judgment (order terminating parental rights) is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, Acting P.J.

We concur:

PERREN, J.

TANGEMAN, J.Tari L. Cody, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
#### YEARLING et al. v. HART.

No. 3997.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit, Second Division.

June 11, 1932.

J. B. Crow, of Shreveport, for appellant.

W. M. Pollock, of Mansfield, for appellees.

STEPHENS, J.

This is a petitory action in which the plaintiffs are seeking recognition of title to certain lands lying in De Soto and Red River parishes. The defendant admits the possession of the land in question, but sets up no title in himself, and prays that the plaintiffs’ demands be rejected; and for damages in the sum of $500 for wrongful disturbance by plaintiffs of his possession.

A trial resulted in a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed.

*713In January, 1932, the plaintiffs filed in this court a certified copy of a judgment of the Eleventh judicial district court, pronouncing the defendant insane and committing him to the Central Louisiana State Hospital. The judgment is dated April 28, 1931, and this case was submitted to this court for review on appeal on March 14,1932.

It appears that the defendant has not been formally interdicted. Article 964 of the Code of Practice, as amended by Act No. 308 of 1910, provides: “The above provision shall not be so construed as to prevent persons having claims against a minor, insane person not interdicted, but committed to an insane asylum, or a person absent, pursuing the same previous to the interdiction of such insane person, or to a tutor or curator having been appointed as above prescribed; but in such cases, the person claiming must in his petition pray the court to which it is addressed to appoint a tutor or curator ‘ad Hoc’ to defend the minor, insane, or absent person in the action.”

Until a curator ad hoc is appointed to represent the defendant in compliance with the provisions of the quoted article, no valid legal action may be taken in this suit.

It is therefore ordered that the case be returned to the docket of this court to await further proceedings according to law.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6785

ERROL DOUGLASS FULFORD-EL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; JAMES YONKER;

JACQUELEN SHANK; CAPTAIN SOTALMYER; J. LYNCH;

JAMES PEGUESS, Warden; SARGEANT MYERS; K. O.

WILLIAMS, Lieutenant; CLARK JENTY,

Correctional Officer II; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER

COOPER; SARGEANT HANCOCK; GARY FOREMAN,

Lieutenant; WILLIAM W. SONDERVAN; MARVIN N.

ROBBINS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-03-1254-WDQ)

Submitted: August 14, 2003 Decided: August 21, 2003

Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Errol Douglass Fulford-El, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

 To the extent Fulford-El attempts to appeal orders from

Fulford-El v. Robbins, No. CA-03-1200-1, this appeal was separately

docketed, and Fulford-El filed a motion to dismiss, which was

granted. Therefore, we do not consider those orders.

2

PER CURIAM:

Errol Douglass Fulford-El appeals the district court’s order

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint without prejudice.

The district court dismissed the complaint because Fulford-El did

not comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, requiring a short and plain

statement of his claims. Because Fulford-El may cure this defect

by amending his complaint, the dismissal without prejudice is not

a final, appealable order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers

Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). We

therefore dismiss the appeal.* We deny Fulford-El’s motion for

transfer to another institution. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mohammed Reza Enayat

v. Civil No. 07-cv-72-JD

United States of America

PROCEDURAL ORDER

Following this court's order denying his motion for relief

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Mohammed Reza Enayat moves for

reconsideration on three grounds. He contends that he only

disavowed the need for a hearing because he believed it was

unnecessary due to the strength of his claims. He also contends

that the court erred in concluding that his counsel was not

constitutionally ineffective in recommending against the plea

agreement being negotiated by his former counsel and in failing

to pursue the question of whether the government had obtained a

handwriting analysis of the forged signature on the stolen check. 

The government, for whatever reason, failed to respond to

Enayat's motion, which is not helpful in resolving the issues

raised.

Although a hearing in this case did not appear to be

necessary based on the parties' initial filings, in light of the

motion to reconsider, two issues could be amplified by factual

development at a hearing. Therefore, a hearing will be scheduled

Case 1:07-cv-00072-JD Document 22 Filed 11/29/07 Page 1 of 3
2

to address Enayat's claims that his former counsel, Robert

Jubinville, provided constitutionally ineffective assistance in

(1) advising him to reject the government's plea offer and (2) in

failing to request the FBI's handwriting analysis of the writing

on the stolen check. 

To address those claims, the court directs Attorney

Jubinville to cooperate with Enayat's present counsel and the

Assistant United States Attorney in any preparation that may be

necessary for the hearing. Attorney Jubinville shall be present

at the hearing and shall be prepared to testify about the two

issues identified above. He also shall bring his complete file

for the case, United States v. Enayat, 03-cr-82-JD, to the

hearing. Enayat shall be present at the hearing. In addition,

the government shall produce for the hearing the agent or other

person with knowledge about whether a handwriting analysis was

done of the check in question and, if an analysis was done, the

government shall produce a copy of the handwriting analysis for

inspection at the hearing. 

Case 1:07-cv-00072-JD Document 22 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 3
3

Conclusion

The clerk of court will set a date for the hearing after

consulting with the Assistant United States Attorney and Enayat's

current counsel about an appropriate schedule. No later than

twenty days before the hearing, counsel and the AUSA shall each

file a list of witnesses they expect to testify at the hearing. 

Counsel and the AUSA will be responsible to prepare and serve any

subpoenas that may be necessary to obtain a witness's presence at

the hearing.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

November 29, 2007

cc: Edward J. Juel, Esquire

Aixa Maldonado-Quinones, Esquire

Robert L. Jubinville, Esquire

Case 1:07-cv-00072-JD Document 22 Filed 11/29/07 Page 3 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Alan Reid, et al.

v. Case No. 05-cv-272-SM

Clay Kennard

ORDER

Re: Document No. 3, Emergency MOTION to Vacate State Court

Order

Ruling: Motion granted in part and denied in part. The state

court expedited discovery order is modified as follows. Defendant

Kennard shall provide the ordered discovery on or before the close

of business on August 10, 2005. While it appears likely that

this matter will be referred for arbitration, it is clear that the

Board is legally entitled to the internal corporate information it

seeks from its president, that the other information ordered

produced is discoverable, and that either the court or an

arbitrator will benefit from full disclosure of that information in

resolving the disputes between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1450.

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

Date: August 2, 2005

cc: Kenneth C. Bartholomew, Esq.

Michael J. Lambert, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00272-SM Document 5 Filed 08/02/05 Page 1 of 1
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk December 21, 2009

d1214 

# Order

December 21, 2009

139269

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139269 COA: 290139 Wayne CC: 05-000168 ERIC GIVAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to ap peal the May 26, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 07-cr-78-01-SM

Christopher Robinson

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 26) is granted.. Trial has

been rescheduled for March 2008 trial period. Defendant shall file a Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not

later than January 9, 2008. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the best

interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure

to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for

effective preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Case 1:07-cr-00078-SM Document 27 Filed 01/04/08 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference: February 26, 2008 at 4:00 PM 

Jury Selection: March 4, 2008 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

January 4, 2008 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Peter Papps, Esq.

 James Dennehy, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00078-SM Document 27 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 188 (Friday, September 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 55873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22512]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Veterans Employment and Training Service


Agency Information Collection Activities: New Collection; Comment 
Request; 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Homeless 
Veterans Reintegration Program Data Collection and Effectiveness Study.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, Veterans Employment and Training 
Service published a document in the Federal Register. Agency 
Information Collection Activities: New Collection; Comment Request 
Action: 60-Day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Homeless 
Veterans Reintegration Program Data Collection and Effectiveness Study. 
The Department is issuing a restructured a paragraph for clarification 
purposes.

Correction

    This is to correct the ``text'' caption in the Federal Register of 
on August 15, 2008, Volume 73, Number 159, and OFR Doc <greek-i> 2008-
18858, on page 47981, in section marked Date, to read: DATES: The 
Department will accept comments from the public up to 60 from 
publication of notice.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 19th day of September 2008.
Charles S. Ciccolella,
Assistant Secretary, Veterans Employment and Training Service.
 [FR Doc. E8-22512 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-79-P
#### BRIDGES v. GANTT.

No. 5841.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

March 31, 1939.

A. S. Drew, of Minden, for appellant.

Floyd D. Culbertson, Jr., of Minden, for appellee.

TALIAFERRO, Judge.

The appellant herein has made no appearance; has filed no brief; nor has he in any other manner disclosed an interest in or purpose to prosecute the appeal taken and perfected by him-. In these circumstances, it will be conclusively presumed that he has abandoned the appeal; and for this reason,—

It is now ordered that said appeal be dismissed at the cost of appellant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Stephen Emanouil

v. Case No. 07-cv-162-PB

Jennie Barker

O R D E R

After due consideration of the objection filed, I herewith approve the Report

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Muirhead dated August 31, 2007.

SO ORDERED.

September 12, 2007 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: Jackson W. Casey, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00162-PB Document 9 Filed 09/12/07 Page 1 of 1
6

A.2. Average Size of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersThousands of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 1 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid

1992...... 31.18 68.23 26.89 14.73 15.94 108.68 3.70 14.82 45.85 468.20 1993...... 34.28 79.68 23.07 15.25 13.91 111.99 3.71 14.94 46.12 490.33 1994...... 33.91 60.27 27.58 16.29 17.54 123.60 3.72 14.57 46.98 480.70 1995...... 33.77 49.68 26.74 18.46 15.59 93.60 3.73 14.72 44.94 451.25 1996...... 39.25 59.00 24.23 26.00 17.23 95.19 3.73 14.95 45.22 545.93 1997...... 31.40 42.33 25.99 16.82 17.79 97.18 3.76 14.86 45.78 385.35 1998...... 32.36 41.46 24.32 18.16 28.10 127.91 3.73 14.78 45.40 357.03 1999...... 30.92 35.63 26.42 21.43 31.82 101.12 3.82 14.83 46.80 322.06 2000...... 26.30 43.25 25.96 21.27 29.27 48.49 3.85 14.94 45.33 258.41 2001...... 29.40 39.71 29.75 20.03 31.76 62.16 3.87 14.76 45.45 269.62 2002...... 28.77 47.63 33.26 21.43 24.44 62.04 3.72 15.02 45.83 269.92 2003...... 30.74 67.77 36.98 21.44 33.40 64.60 3.75 14.81 47.26 276.39 2000: Q4... 25.90 40.24 27.02 18.56 20.65 54.79 4.16 15.11 44.23 252.17 2001: Q1... 33.29 30.14 25.26 24.29 34.58 78.43 3.91 15.23 46.59 274.01  Q2... 26.91 31.36 29.51 19.30 41.18 47.15 3.89 14.50 44.07 263.70  Q3... 23.23 43.62 27.17 16.20 23.42 46.14 3.70 14.68 43.97 255.59  Q4... 35.30 51.03 37.52 21.12 22.89 83.12 4.01 14.69 47.12 280.16 2002: Q1... 33.13 48.19 33.07 25.93 26.71 60.82 3.65 15.01 47.55 237.43  Q2... 23.72 41.55 32.41 18.55 19.26 48.30 3.69 15.06 45.28 216.61  Q3... 28.88 48.00 28.87 21.00 30.85 75.68 3.69 14.83 44.27 329.62  Q4... 31.46 52.06 38.39 22.16 17.78 67.64 3.85 15.19 46.02 333.67 2003: Q1... 35.98 68.86 32.35 27.73 38.74 62.19 3.72 14.88 46.71 249.54  Q2... 24.61 43.91 32.67 18.01 28.73 55.73 3.72 14.67 48.45 241.93  Q3... 27.75 78.05 40.90 17.84 37.37 65.70 3.53 14.83 46.45 319.67  Q4... 35.13 79.92 42.70 23.13 28.16 75.70 4.11 14.85 47.42 313.07 2004: Q1... 45.07 60.59 43.04 35.57 56.02 98.51 3.86 15.02 47.24 341.06  Q2... 32.01 47.74 36.25 21.95 26.77 116.76 3.73 15.17 45.83 358.08  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 15








TXU Corp.:

We have made a review, in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited condensed
consolidated interim financial information of TXU Corp. and subsidiaries (TXU
Corp.) as of June 30, 2004 and for the three-month and six-month periods ended
June 30, 2004 and 2003, as indicated in our report dated August 5, 2004; because
we did not perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in TXU Corp.'s
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-37652, 333-64504,
333-64504-01, 333-64504-02, 333-71004, 333-71004-01, 333-71004-02, 333-84418,
333-84418-01, 333-84418-02, 333-110125 and Amendment No. 1 thereto, 333-103922,
and 333-115159 on Form S-3 and Registration Statements Nos. 333-32833,
333-32837, 333-45657, 333-46671, 333-79627 as amended by Post Effective
Amendment No. 1 thereto, 333-62014, 333-86640, 333-92260 and 333-105133 on Form
S-8.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Dallas, Texas
August 5, 2004
Case 1:07-cv-00070-JL Document 55 Filed 01/07/08 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-00070-JL Document 55 Filed 01/07/08 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-00070-JL Document 55 Filed 01/07/08 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-00070-JL Document 55 Filed 01/07/08 Page 4 of 4
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          19,475
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,265
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,968
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,179
<PP&E>                                           2,851
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,221
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 121,439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,051
<BONDS>                                         80,343
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           123
<OTHER-SE>                                     (25,832)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   121,439
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               (56,519)
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,447
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,404
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 330
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (86,700)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (86,700)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (86,700)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (7.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (7.05)
        

</TABLE>
#### Westland Garden State Plaza, L.P., Respondent, v Ezat, Inc., Trading as VariZioni, Appellant.

[810 NYS2d 131]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered August 20, 2004, awarding plaintiff the principal amount of $189,598.62, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about July 22, 2004, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the July 22, 2004 order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the ensuing judgment. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about May 4, 2005, denying defendant’s motion for reargument, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as no appeal lies from the denial of re-argument.

Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, based on a New Jersey money judgment in its favor, was properly granted. That the out-of-state judgment was entered on default did not affect its adequacy as a ground for relief pursuant to CPLR 3213 *(see*CPLR 5406; *Steinberg v Metro Entertainment Corp.,*145 AD2d 333 [1988]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, it is apparent that the New Jersey court had personal jurisdiction over it. The affidavit of diligent in*517quiry submitted by plaintiffs counsel pursuant to New Jersey Rules of Court rule 4:4-5 (c) (2) clearly demonstrated that sufficient efforts were made to serve defendant personally in New Jersey and that they were unsuccessful. The record further establishes that defendant was thereafter duly served by certified and regular mail at its principal place of business pursuant to New Jersey Rules of Court rule 4:4-4 (b) (1) (C).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.