alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS; Opinion issued February 13, 2013

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-12-01036-CV

COLETTE WOODARDS, Appellant

V.

OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CO., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-03324-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright

The $175 filing fee in this case is overdue. By letter dated July 30, 2012, we notified 

appellant the filing fee was due. We directed appellant to pay the fee within ten days and 

cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal. Also by 

postcard dated July 30, 2012, we notified appellant the time for filing a docketing statement had 

expired. We directed appellant to file a docketing statement within ten days and cautioned 

appellant that failure to do so might result in the dismissal of this appeal. To date, appellant has 

not paid the filing fee, filed a docketing statement, or otherwise corresponded with the Court 

regarding the status of this appeal.
2

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b),(c).

121036F.P05

/Carolyn Wright/

CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
3

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

COLETTE WOODARDS, Appellant

No. 05-12-01036-CV V.

OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CO., Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 4, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-12-03324-D.

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis participating.

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

It is ORDERED that appellee OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CO. recover its costs of this 

appeal from appellant COLETTE WOODARDS.

Judgment entered February 13, 2013.

/Carolyn Wright/

CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
# National Grandparents Day, 2010 

Throughout our history, American families have been guided and strengthened by the support of devoted grandparents.  These mentors have a special place in our homes and communities, ensuring the stories and traditions of our heritage are passed down through generations.  On National Grandparents Day, we honor those who have helped shape the character of our Nation, and we thank these role models for their immeasurable acts of love, care, and understanding.

Grandparents witness great milestones in the lives of their children and grandchildren.  Whether with us when we learn to read or ride a bicycle, they celebrate early triumphs, console us when we are distressed, and cultivate our dreams.  Through decades of hard work and sacrifice, our forebears have also enabled many of the rights and opportunities now accessible to all Americans.  As a country and a people, our grandparents have made us who we are today.

National Grandparents Day presents a chance to show our profound appreciation and respect for the central roles that family elders play in our lives.  The legacy of these selfless caregivers is not only reflected in the principles and sense of purpose they inspire in their loved ones, but also in their unique ability to reach across ages and enrich the lives of generations of Americans.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 12, 2010, as National Grandparents Day.  I call upon all Americans to take the time to honor their own grandparents and those in their community.

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fifth.

[FR Doc. 2010-23202

Billing code 3195-W0-P
#### LANDESPRIV., ETC., *v.*HALL & RUCKEL.

Trademark ; Similarity or Marks.

The word “Kalodont” as applied to tooth paste, *held*not to 30 nearly resemble “Sozodont,” used as a trademark on similar preparations, as to be calculated to mislead and deceive purchasers. (Following *Sail*v. *Ingram,*28 App. D. C. 454.)

No, 674,

Patent Appeals.

Submitted January 10, 1911.

Decided March 6, 1911.

Hearing on an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents sustaining the opposition to an application for registration of a trademark.

*Reversed.*

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Mr. Titian W. Johnson*and *Mr. Henry*Orth, *Jr.,*for the appellant.

*533*Mr. Samuel O. Edmonds*for the appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice Shepard

delivered, the opinion of the Court:

The appellants, K. K. Landespriv. Milly-Kerzen-Seifen und Grlyeerin-Fabrik Yon F. A. Sarg’s Sohn & Company, applied for registration of “Kalodont” as a trademark for tooth paste, and were opposed by appellees, Hall and Kuckel, on the ground that they had used “Sozodont” as a trademark on similar preparations for many years prior to any use of “Kalodont,” and that the latter so nearly resembles the former as to be calculated to mislead, deceive, and confuse, and to result in interference and conflict in trade. The opposition was sustained by the Examiner, whose decision was affirmed on appeal to the Commissioner.

The finding that the appellees had used “Sozodont” as a trademark long prior to the date of use claimed for “Kalodont” is fully supported by the evidence. There was no evidence of any actual confusion in trade. Witnesses for appellees expressed opinions that it would be the result should appellants’ goods be put on general retail sale. Some testimony on the part of appellants tended to show, from a very limited observation, that confusion had not resulted.

The decision turned substantially upon “the judgment 'of the eye” in the comparison of the two words. Comparing the marks we have come to a different conclusion. We think that the case is governed by *Hall v. Ingram,*28 App. D. C. 454, where it was held that there was no such misleading resemblance between “Sozodont” and “Zodenta.”

The decision will be reversed, and this decision will be certified to the Commissioner of Patents. *Reversed.*
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARINO LUIS GARCIA, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 20-71497 

Agency No. A208-825-023 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 8, 2021**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Marino Luis Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for 

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal 

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, 

withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

NOV 18 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 20-71497 

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C § 1252. We review de novo claims of due 

process violations in immigration proceedings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 

532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We also review de novo the legal question of whether a 

particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to 

the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Conde Quevedo 

v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241-42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review for substantial 

evidence the agency’s factual findings. Id. at 1241. We deny the petition for 

review. 

Luis Garcia’s contentions that the agency violated his right to due process, 

deprived him of the right to counsel, or otherwise erred in its handling and analysis 

of his case fail. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring 

error and prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

The agency did not err in concluding that Luis Garcia did not establish 

membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch, 842 F.3d 

1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a particular 

group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members 

who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and 

(3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M-E-V-G-, 

26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Thus, Luis Garcia’s asylum and 

withholding of removal claims fail. 
3 20-71497 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Luis Garcia failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or with 

the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See Aden v. 

Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009). 

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the 

mandate. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Geo. Easterly *& Son*v. Preston Jones.

(No. 1597, Op. Book No. 3, p. 775.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 189. *Warranty; remedies in case of.*Where there is a breach of the agreement or warranty accompanied with fraud, the buyer may always return the goods or not, at his pleasure. Where there is no fraud, and the warranty goes to the fitness of the article, and it proves wholly unsuitable, or to the identity of the article, and it proves another thing from that for which it -vyas sold, it may be returned upon breach of the agreement or warranty. But if the warranty goes to the degree of fitness or to quality, and it proves to be an inferior quality or fitness, the goods cannot be returned, and the remedy is by action for damages, the measure of which is the difference between the value of the article as it is and as it was represented to be. Thus, if a machine is sold for a particular purpose, and it will perform none of the functions, it may be returned. [Sedgw. on Dam. 286; Story on Con. § 850; Chitty on Con. 399; Benj. on Sales, 741; Smith’s Lead. Cases, vol. 2, 276; Wright v. Davenport, 44 Tex. 164.]

Reversed and remanded.
News United States Air Force
 AF Academy to send cadets to South Korea for semesterPublished June 30, 2021
                        
                        By Ray Bowden
                        
                        
                        U.S. Air Force Academy Public Affairs
                **U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. (AFNS) --**
                The Republic of Korea Air Force Academy will begin hosting cadets from the U.S. Air Force Academy for a semester of study later this year.
The semester exchange program is the result of an agreement signed by the U.S. and South Korea, June 8.
“The Department of the Air Force and Republic of Korea air force share a long history of cooperation based on common interests, shared values and robust personal relationships that have developed through extensive Airman-to-Airman interactions,” said**Kelli Seybolt**, deputy undersecretary of the Air Force, international affairs.Lt. Gen. Sung Chun Choi, superintendent of the Republic of Korea Air Force Academy in Cheongju, South Korea, and**Lt. Gen. Richard Clark**, the Air Force Academy’s superintendent, met via livestream June 22 to discuss the program, saying they’ll promote their partner-nation goals as military leaders and new friends.“I give you my pledge that we will do our best at the Air Force Academy to further our partnership over the coming years, and make this a great experience for Korean cadets,” Clark said, referring to the new semester exchange. This adds to the existing four-year international cadet program from which, since 1972, 28 South Korean cadets have graduated from the Air Force Academy.
Choi said the program is the result of two years of conversation and negotiation between the two countries.
“Both (U.S. and South Korean) cadets can understand the global security environment and learn more about the Republic of Korea-U.S. alliance," he said.
Cadet 3rd Class Brian Park and Cadet 2nd Class David Song are scheduled to leave Colorado for the Republic of Korea Air Force Academy in August.
“By establishing this exchange, our cadets will gain additional regional perspective by immersing in the rich cultural history of Korea, further strengthening our alliance for generations to come,” Seybolt said. “Katchi Kapshida – We go together.”AFWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



USAFA 



U.S. Air Force Academy 



South Korea 



Republic of Korea Air Force Academy 



cadets 



exchange program 



partnership alliance 



One Air Force
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# B-1 Lancer crashes in Montana

              - Published  Aug. 19, 2013

**ELLSWORTH AIR FORCE BASE, S.D. --  **
A B-1B Lancer with the 28th Bomb Wing here crashed near Broadus, Mont., during a routine training mission Aug. 19. 

 

A crew of two pilots and two weapon systems officers were on board. All four members of the aircrew safely ejected with some injuries. 

 

"We are actively working to ensure the safety of the crew members and have sent first responders to secure the scene and work closely with local authorities at the crash site,” said Col. Kevin Kennedy, the 28th Bomb Wing commander. "Right now all of our thoughts and prayers are with the crews and their families,"

 

Air Force officials will conduct a thorough investigation to determine the cause of the accident. 

 

Additional information will be released as it becomes available.

 

*(Information courtesy of 28th Bomb Wing Public Affairs)*

B-1BLanceraircraft crashmishapEllsworth AFB28th Bomb Wing

#             Related Links        

-  B-1B Lancer 
-  28th Bomb Wing, Ellsworth AFB, S.D.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 13

- 00100

- CR

Joshua Richard Crouch

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 1

o f Tarrant County (1282197D )

May 29, 2014

Opinion by Justice Walker

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was error in the trial court’s judgme nt. The judgment is modified to include

the $10,000 fine assessed by the jury and pronounced by the trial court . It is

ordered that the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as modified.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

__ /s/ Sue Walker

____________ _______ Justice Sue Walker
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          53,267
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             265
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 5,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    719,621
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      3,784,686
<ALLOWANCE>                                   (58,864)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,201,814
<DEPOSITS>                                     554,312
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             86,068
<LONG-TERM>                                  3,815,842
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           812
<OTHER-SE>                                     744,780
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               5,201,814
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                257,462
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               57,419
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   479
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               315,360
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,104
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             197,650
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          117,710
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   12,108
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               4,406
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                136,233
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                101,699
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      95,086
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    95,086
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.70
<LOANS-NON>                                     93,510
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                53,880
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    8,832
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,708
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               58,864
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
EX-35.4
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp.
383 Madison Avenue
31st Floor
New York, NY 10179


RE: Annual Statement as to Compliance

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells
Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows for the calendar year 2011:


(a) a review of Wells Fargo's activities as Trustee and/or Paying Agent under
the servicing agreement(s) listed on Schedule A hereto (the "Servicing
Agreement(s)") has been made under my supervision; and

(b) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review Wells Fargo has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement(s) in all material
respects throughout the reporting period.


March 1, 2012

/s/ Judith J. Rishel
JUDITH RISHEL
Vice President


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(logo) Together we'll go far


(page)


(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
Columbia, MD 21045

Tel: 410 884 2000
Fax: 410 715 2380


To: J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Cor

Schedule A

List of Servicing Agreement(s) and Series


1 Pooling and Servicing Agreement for JP Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage
  Securities Trust 2011-C5,Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series
  2011-C5, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee and Paying Agent, as applicable.


Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(logo) Together we'll go far
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EDWARD J. MCGLYNN, JR.

January 17, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### B. M. Odum v. Loomis & Christian.

(No. 309, Op. Book No. 1, p. 508.)

Appeal from Travis County.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 5 2 4. *Mechanic's lien; purchaser without notice; staU ute construed.*Appellees furnished material to Dyson & Brooks, and labor also, to construct certain improvements. Appellant purchased the property upon which the improvements had been placed, paid a valuable consideration therefor, and had no notice of any lien upon it. The purchase was made within six months after appellees’ debt against Dyson & Brooks had become due. Appellees brought this suit against Dyson & Brooks and appellant to recover of Dyson & Brooks their debt, and to enforce a mechanic’s and materialman’s lien upon the property. Appellees had not had their lien recorded under the provisions of the statute. [2 Pas. Dig. 7112 et seq.] *Held,*when the party claims the benefit of a statutory lien he must show that he has' strictly complied with all the prerequisites of the statute, the aid of which he invokes; and however just and equitable may be its operations between the owner and the mechanic or material-man, care must be taken that it be not extended beyond its legitimate scope, to the prejudice of third persons who have no means of knowing the existence of such incumbrance, save such as the statute points out. [Phillips on Mechanics’ Liens, § 20; 3 Minn. 86.] The lien given by our statute is binding against the party to whom the material is furnished or the work done; but the statute cannot be construed so as to bind the property in the hands of a *bona fide*purchaser for value, without notice of ■ such lien upon it, although the property was pur*262chased within, six months after the maturing of the debt. If the creditor party desires to make good his lien against subsequent purchasers he should put them upon notice by placing his lien upon record as provided by law. The judgment in this case, in so far as it foreclosed a lien upon the property purchased by the appellant, was erroneous. [Note.— The provisions of the statute as they now exist are substantially the same as those discussed and construed in this opinion. R. S. 3164 et seq.]

October 12, 1878.

Reversed and remanded.
#### William Wallace v. Crow & Jones.

(No. 379, Op. Book No. 1, p. 259.)

Error from Travis County.

May 10, 1877.

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 41. *Judgment by default where service is imperfect.*The record shows that citation was served on the 13th day of July, 1876. The 17th day of July, 1876, was the first day of the July term, 1876, of the county court of Travis county, and the return day of the citation. There were but three days between the day of service and the day of return of the citation. It was error to render final judgment by default at the July term, 1876, of the county court. [Acts June 17, 1876, secs. 18, 19, p. 22; Pas. Dig. art. 1507; O’Connor v. Towns, 1 Tex. 107; Hyde v. White, 24 Tex. 142; Dickson v. Burke, 28 Tex. 117.]

Eeversed and remanded.
#### Jas. A. Burris v. John A. Gose.

(No. 758, Op. Book No. 3, p. 424.)

Appeal from Lamar County.

June 9, 1880.

Opinion by

Clark, J.

§ 74. *Damages, exemplary.*Exemplary damages can only be recovered at the suit of the injured party. Thus, when money was wrongfully taken from A. by B., and thereafter A. assigned the money to C., in a suit by O. to recover the money and exemplary damages of B., it was held that he was only entitled to recover the money and legal interest.

Beversed and remanded.
Exhibit 31.2

I, Jeffrey R. Olmstead, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Mid-Con Energy Partners, LP; 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: June 24, 2014 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Jeffrey R. Olmstead              
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | Jeffrey R. Olmstead                  
|                    |  |  |  |  |  | President and Chief Financial Officer
June 19, 2012



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DOYLE MURPHREE , Appellant
NO. 14

- 11

- 00416

- CV V.
LUCY M. COOPER , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal in favor of appellee, Lucy M. Cooper, signed, April 6, 2011 , was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant, Doyle Murphree, jointl y and severly, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.