alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Ford Motor Company and 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 3, 2014

No. 04-14-00562-CV

Jesus DE LOS SANTOS, Jr., Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Jesus Francisco De 

Los Santos, Deceased, and Juan De Los Santos, Individually,

Appellants

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY and Marco Anthony Soliz, Jr.,

Appellees

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11-08-50394-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

A copy of Cross-Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed in this court on August 12, 2014. At 

that time, the clerk of this court notified Cross-Appellant that the $175.00 filing fee had not been paid 

and the docketing statement had not been filed. The notice warned Appellant that his appeal was 

subject to being dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee. Cross-Appellant appears to be represented 

by retained counsel, and our records do not establish that Cross-Appellant is excused by statute or 

rule from paying the filing fee or filing the docketing statement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5, 20.1, 32.1.

We therefore ORDER Cross-Appellant Marco Soliz, Jr. to show cause in writing within ten

days of the date of this order that either (1) the filing fee has been paid, or (2) Cross-Appellant is 

entitled to appeal without paying the filing fee, and to file a docketing statement with this court. If 

Cross-Appellant fails to respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 5, 42.3(c). 

All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court 

on this 3rd day of September, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7658

MITCHELL ALFONSO KEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JIM MCCAULLEY, Jail Administrator, Richland

County Detention Center,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-93-1009-2-17-AJ)

Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 3, 1997

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mitchell Alfonso Key, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson,

II, John Thomas Lay, Jr., ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A.,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal

are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and

jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within

which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions

to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time

to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal

period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on October 11, 1995;

Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on October 18, 1996. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of

the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore dismiss the

appeal. 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
760 A.2d 845

#### In the Matter of Anne P. LORENZ. Petition for Reinstatement from Inactive Status.

No. 49 DB 2000.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 14, 2000.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 14th day of September, 2000, The Report and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated August 17, 2000, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that ANNE P. LORENZ, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that she has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.
Exhibit 10(a)




	CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS




	We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption
      “Investment Advisory and Other Services — Independent Auditors”
      in this Registration Statement on Form N-1A under the Investment Company
      Act of 1940 (File No. 811-21162) of Merrill Lynch Fundamental Growth Principal
      Protected Fund of Merrill Lynch Principal Protected Trust, and to the incorporation
      by reference therein of our report, dated October 22, 2003, with respect
      to the financial statements of Merrill Lynch Fundamental Growth Principal
      Protected Fund, for the period from November 13, 2002 (commencement of operations)
      through August 31, 2003.




	/s/ Ernst & Young LLP




	MetroPark, New Jersey

      December 17, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET (UNAUDITED) AS OF 6/30/96 AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED) FOR
THE THREE MONTHS ENDED 6/30/96
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                          11,436
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,800,269
<PP&E>                                          24,616
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,514
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,865,821
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          108,781
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        54,962
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,702,078
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,865,821
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (659,778)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (659,778)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (659,778)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (659,778)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.012)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.012)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 91 (Tuesday, June 6, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1157]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

        A TRIBUTE TO THE HOWARD MARTIN RICHARDSON VFW POST 5394

                                 ______

                       HON. WALTER R. TUCKER III

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                          Tuesday, June 6, 1995
  Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an 
organization established for the men and women whose desire it was to 
serve and protect our great Nation. They are individuals who fought 
valiant battles in foreign lands, many of whom gave the ultimate 
sacrifice--their lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand before you today to recognize the 
significant contributions and the 30th anniversary of the Howard Martin 
Richardson VFW Post 5394.
  From an initial group of 38 men, the post's membership has grown to 
almost 1,400 members, men and women veterans of foreign wars. The post 
is the largest in the Fourth District and the fourth largest in the 
State of California. The post acquired its present name when it decided 
to honor one of its late commanders in 1982 and petitioned for a name 
change from the Wayne Emerson Bungard Post to the present name--Howard 
Martin Richardson Post.
  During the 30 years of its existence, Post 5349 has labored toward 
its goals and objectives of serving the Compton and surrounding 
communities, veterans of the United States, their widows and orphans; 
all this while remaining solvent and self-supporting.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an organization that 
continues to make a difference. I rise today to pay tribute to the 
Howard Martin Richardson VFW Post 5394 in the city of Compton, CA.

                          ____________________
```
#### FRANK VANDEVER *v.*COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 22933)

Lavery, C. J., and Foti and Flynn, Js.

Submitted on briefs May 2

officially released June 10, 2003

Per Curiam.

The habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal from the dismissal of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The appeal is dismissed.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RILLA HUML, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

SERVIS ONE, INC., DBA BSI Financial 

Services, a Delaware corporation, authorized 

to do business in California; WILMINGTON 

TRUST FUND SOCIETY FSB, a Delaware 

corporation, doing business, but not 

authorize do business, as CHRISTIANA 

TRUST in California) as Trustee, for 

BROUGHAM FUND I TRUST, an unknown 

entity; ZIEVE, BRODNAX AND STEELE, 

LLP, a California Limited Liability 

Partnership; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 

S/B/M Wachovia Mortgage, FSB; WELLS 

FARGO BANK SOUTH CENTRAL, N.A.; 

DOES, 1 through 10, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 22-55362 

D.C. No. 

8:20-cv-00489-DOC-KES 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 5, 2023**

* 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 

FILED

DEC 5 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Rilla Huml appeals pro se after voluntarily dismissing without prejudice her 

claims against Wilmington Trust Fund Society FSB, the sole remaining defendant 

in Huml’s action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act, the Real Estate 

Settlement Procedures Act, and state law stemming from the servicing and transfer 

of her mortgage loan. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Huml’s notice of appeal was timely only as to her voluntary dismissal of the 

claims without prejudice. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be 

filed 30 days after judgment or order appealed); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 

214 (2007) (“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a 

jurisdictional requirement.”). “A voluntary dismissal without prejudice is 

ordinarily not a final judgment from which the plaintiff may appeal,” unless “1) 

there [is] no evidence of any attempt to manipulate appellate jurisdiction; and 2) 

the plaintiff . . . sought the district court’s permission to dismiss the remaining 

claims.” Galaza v. Wolf, 954 F.3d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). Because Huml did not seek the “approval and 

meaningful participation of the district court” in the dismissal of her claims, such 

as by seeking entry of partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
3 

54(b), we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. Id. at 1272; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); 

see also WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) 

(“[A] plaintiff, who has been given leave to amend, may not file a notice of appeal 

simply because he does not choose to file an amended complaint. A further district 

court determination must be obtained.”). 

Wells Fargo’s request for judicial notice, Dkt. Entry No. 15, is denied. 

DISMISSED.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 66 (Monday, April 24, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S5603]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

  The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the 
first and second time by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

           By Mr. BROWN:
       S. 720. A bill to amend rule 11 of the Federal Rules of 
     Civil Procedure, relating to representations in court and 
     sanctions for violating such rule, and for other purposes; to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Cohen):
       S. 721. A bill to impose a moratorium on sanctions under 
     the Clean Air Act with respect to marginal and moderate ozone 
     nonattainment areas, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
     on Environment and Public Works.
     

                          ____________________
```
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restricti ons on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 FAIRY PURIFOY, 2 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3 v. No. 32,319 4 LEE STONE, 5 Defendant-Appellant. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF QUAY COUNTY 7 David P. Reeb, Jr., District Judge 8 John R. Hakanson 9 Alamogordo, NM 10 for Appellee 11 Lee Stone 12 San Jon, NM 13 Pro Se Appellant 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION 15 SUTIN, Judge. 16 In this Court’s second notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed 17 to reverse the district court’s decision and remand to the district court to vacate the 182 protective order only insofar as it pertains to Defendant. See Classen v. Classen , 119 1 N.M. 582, 584-85, 893 P.2d 478, 480-81 (Ct. App. 1995) (expl aining that a court has 2 no discretion in ruling on a motion under Rule 1-060(B)(4) NMRA because if a 3 judgment is void, it must be set aside). The proposed dispos ition was based on the 4 fact that: (1) actual service on Defendant of the motion and subsequent pleadings was 5 required, (2) Defendant’s current address was easily ascertainable to Plaintiff’s 6 counsel from the record, (3) Plaintiff’s counsel did not serve Defendant with any 7 pleadings or notices relating to the protectiv e order, and (4) this was not a situation 8 where Defendant was difficult to locate. See McLam v. McLam , 81 N.M. 37, 39, 462 9 P.2d 622, 624 (1969) (“As a general rule, constructive service is insufficient where 10 the object of the action is to determine the personal rights and obligations of the 11 defendant.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also Clark v. 12 LeBlanc , 92 N.M. 672, 673, 593 P.2d 1075, 1076 (1979) (“It is clear that due process 13 prohibits the use of constructive service wh ere it is feasible to give notice to the 14 defendant in some manner more likely tobring the action to his attention.”). 15 Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition to the proposed disposition that was in 16 his favor. Plaintiff did not file a memorandum in opposition, and the time for doing 17 so has expired. See Rule 12-210(D)(3) NMRA. 183 Defendant’s memorandum in opposition rais es numerous contentions that are 1 not essential to our proposed disposition and relate to issues outside the scope of the 2 limited issue on appeal. Therefore, we reverse the district court’s decision, and 3 remand for the district court to vacate the protective order only insofar as it pertains 4 to Defendant. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6

__________________________________ 7 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 8
WE CONCUR: 9

_______________________________ 10 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 11

_______________________________ 12 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 13
News United States Air Force
 Creech Airmen showcase RPA at Canadian air showPublished July 29, 2015
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Christian Clausen
                        
                        
                        432 Wing/432nd Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs
                **CREECH AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. (AFNS) --**
                The MQ-1 Predator made its debut in Canada among 30,000 Alberta locals in Lethbridge July 23-25. It's the second time it was showcased at an international air show.Fifteen Airmen from Creech Air Force Base participated in the 2015 Lethbridge International Air Show and educated the civilian population on the Predator's capabilities."We brought the MQ-1 Predator and members from different career fields like maintenance, intelligence, sensor operators and pilots so we could educate the public in every facet of the mission," said 2nd Lt. Joel, the 11th Reconnaissance Squadron chief of intelligence. "We wanted to show everyone that the plane is not 'unmanned' and it takes a lot of manpower in every stage of operating the aircraft."Among the high-flying maneuvers and exciting explosions of other demonstrations, the remotely piloted aircraft held the attention of many intrigued spectators and at any given time was surrounded by curious parents and children."We were really well received by everyone," said Capt. Reed, a 15th RS pilot. "We really wanted to dispel any misnomers and put faces to the plane and provide open communication to educate people on what we do, which is ultimately saving lives, and I think we did that."The surprisingly large Predator has a 55-foot wing span, yet it fits in a 27 feet long, 4.5 feet wide, and 4 feet tall casket, and was transported by a C-5M Super Galaxy and aircrew from the 22nd Airlift Squadron."It's a really cool plane. I thought it was a lot smaller, but it's actually quite big," said Wayne Burndred, a Calgary, Alberta, resident.For most spectators, this was the only time they have seen the aircraft up close."I loved seeing the Predator here and being able to see it in person and talk to the guys who actually operate it," said Doug Kakuschke, a resident of Brooks. "It was great having the American presence here again and I hope we can continue to have them participate in the years to come."The 20-year semi-annual air show included demonstrations from a Canadian Forces F-18 Hornet, B-17 Flying Fortress, biplanes, and the Royal Canadian Forces Snowbirds."Overall the air show went great," Reed said. "It was a great opportunity to work with our coalition partners and even Airmen from other U.S. bases to develop partnerships and set the foundation for more international events in the future."RPA 



Airshow 



Creech Air Force Base
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5490]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    MEDICARE AND THE FEDERAL BUDGET

  (Mr. FORD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reference to the budget that is 
before the House and the Senate, and to say as we look toward the 
Medicare cuts that many of the new Republican majority in the House 
have indicated that they want these Medicare cuts for the purposes of 
giving huge tax cuts to the well-to-do in America. I think when we look 
around and we really study what these Medicare cuts are all about, $289 
billion, we are basically saying that we are going to increase those 
premiums on the elderly population of this Nation, those recipients of 
Medicare.
  Yes, we ought to reform Medicare. Sure, we ought to look at some type 
of national health care plan for this country. Sure, those things 
should happen. But to say like the new Republican majority that we want 
to cut the Medicare Program for the well-to-do in America, to give them 
a tax cut, that is wrong, it is mean to the elderly.
  We should not let that happen. We ought to take the budget that we 
have before this House and the Senate and move over the next 7, 8 to 10 
years to try to bring about a balanced budget, but let us not do it 
with the elderly population and the Medicare Program.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit
21.1



The
direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Registrant, and their respective states of incorporation or organization, are set forth
below:



|Subsidiary                              |  | Direct
    or Indirect |  | State
    of 
Incorporation or 
Organization
|--------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|                                        |  |                        |  |                                             
|Pittsburgh
    & West Virginia Railroad |  | Direct                 |  | Pennsylvania                                
|                                        |  |                        |  |                                             
|PW
    Salisbury Solar, LLC             |  | Direct                 |  | Massachusetts                               
|                                        |  |                        |  |                                             
|PW
    Tulare Solar, LLC                |  | Direct                 |  | California                                  
|                                        |  |                        |  |                                             
|PW
    Regulus Solar, LLC               |  | Direct                 |  | California
#### RUBY DI PAOLA v. BERNARD DI PAOLA.

March 27, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.