alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-18-00204-CV

$785 IN U.S. CURRENCY,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 40th District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 98056

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant presented a notice of appeal regarding a trial court order or judgment 

signed on May 25, 2018. By letter dated July 27, 2018, the Clerk of this Court notified 

Appellant that the docketing statement was past due and must be filed within 21 days 

from the date of the letter. No docketing statement was received and filed. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(b).

Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the 

time a document is presented for filing. TEX. R. APP. P. 12.1(b); Appendix to TEX. R. APP.
$785 in U.S. Currency v. State Page 2

P., Order Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). See also TEX. R. APP.

P. 5; 10TH TEX. APP.(WACO) LOC.R. 5; TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 51.207(b); § 51.941(a) (West 

2005); and § 51.208 (West Supp. 2011). Under these circumstances, we suspend the rule 

and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case. TEX. R. APP. P. 2. The 

write-off of the fees from the accounts receivable of the Court in no way eliminates or 

reduces the fees owed by appellants.

AL SCOGGINS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 12, 2018

[CV06]
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Robert CARLEY, et al.

No. 2011-KD-0241.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 2011.

In re Carley, Robert; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. W-04-3-77; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 KW 0199.

Denied.
#### William H. Palmer v. Erastus Peck, Circuit Judge of Jackson County.

*Estates of deceased persons*— Examination *as to possession of effects*— Appeal—Mandamus,

1. A person cited to appear before the probate court for examination touching his possession of effects belonging to the estate of a deceased person, under How. Stat, § 5876, cannot be forced to submit to an oral examination, but the same must be made upon written interrogatories and answers, as provided by How. Stat. § 5877.

2. An order for such oral examination, although unauthorized, is not appealable, and if an appeal is taken *mandamus*will lie to compel the circuit judge to dismiss the appeal; but the only-effect will be to repossess the probate court of the matter.

*Mandamus.*

Submitted January 19, 1892.

Granted January 20, 1892.

Eelator applied for *mandamus*to compel respondent to dismiss an appeal from an order of the probate court-The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Thomas E. Barkworth,*for relator.

*Lewis M. Powell*and *Thomas A. Wilson,*for respondent-

Per Curiam.

The relator, one of the heirs at law of Eebecca Palmer, petitioned the probate judge to cite Annis Campbell to appear before the court, and submit *2to an examination touching effects of the estate in her hands, under sections 5876, 5877, How. Stat. The parties appealed in probate court, and Mrs. Campbell offered to answer in writing any written interrogatories propounded, but the judge made an order requiring her to submit to an oral examination. From this order an appeal was taken to the circuit court. The relator moved to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the order made was not appealable. This motion was denied, and the present application is for *mandamus*to compel the circuit judge to dismiss the appeal.

We hold that the order is not appealable. It could not have been intended that such proceedings in aid of administration could be arrested by appeal. See *Walker v. Hull, 35*Mich. 488; *Moore v. Moore,*48 Id. 271; *Goss v. Stone,*63 Id. 319.

But we are all of opinion that the order made by the probate judge was unauthorized. The statute provides, in terms, that the interrogatories and answers shall be in writing (section 5877); and we cannot, without doing violence to the language, hold that the act of reducing the testimony to writing, as the examination proceeds, meets the requirements of the statute. See *Martin v. Clapp,*99 Mass. 470. As we hold the order not appeal-able, we grant the writ; but, as the relator was not entitled to proceed under this order, the only effect will be to repossess the probate court of the matter.

No costs will be allowed on this order.
#### Donna DAVIS, Individually and as Succession Representative of the Estate of Dannie R. Breaux v. CATLIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, John Capitano, Jr. d/b/a Capitano’s Truck and Callie C. Capitano.

No. 2011-CC-0401.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Catlin Specialty Insurance Company; -Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 70,536; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 10-C-939.

Denied.
##### 



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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Targeted Genetics
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,
2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, H. Stewart Parker, President and Chief 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, as amended; and                   
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |  | (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

|                 |  |                                                                                    
|---------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|October 31, 2003 |  | /s/      H. STEWART PARKER

H. Stewart Parker
President and
Chief Executive Officer
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1359 

To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United 

States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 6, 2007 

Mr. SHADEGG (for himself, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. 

GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. 

GOHMERT, Mr. MARCHANT, Ms. FOXX, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. 

BURTON of Indiana, Mr. HERGER, Mr. AKIN, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. BISHOP

of New York, Mr. PAUL, Mr. MCCOTTER, and Mrs. MYRICK) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 

and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To require Congress to specify the source of authority under 

the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, 

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 ‘‘Enumerated Powers 

5 Act’’. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1359 IH

1 SEC. 2. SPECIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY 

2 FOR ENACTMENT OF LAW. 

3 (a) CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY FOR THIS ACT.— 

4 This Act is enacted pursuant to the power granted Con5 gress under article I, section 8, clause 18, of the United 

6 States Constitution and the power granted to each House 

7 of Congress under article I, section 5, clause 2, of the 

8 United States Constitution. 

9 (b) CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT RE10 QUIRED.—Chapter 2 of title 1, United States Code, is 

11 amended by inserting after section 102 the following new 

12 section: 

13 ‘‘§ 102a. Constitutional authority clause 

14 ‘‘Each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and 

15 definite statement of the constitutional authority relied 

16 upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act. The 

17 failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point 

18 of order in either House of Congress. The availability of 

19 this point of order does not affect any other available re20 lief.’’ 

21 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

22 at the beginning of chapter 2 of title 1, United States 

23 Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to 

24 section 102 the following new item: 

‘‘102a. Constitutional authority clause.’’. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Larry John THOMPSON.

No. 2011-K-0915.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District *1188Court Div. 5, No. 270417; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,089-KA.

Granted.
Exhibit 99.2





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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Targeted Genetics Corporation on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Todd E.
Simpson, Vice President, Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer 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.





November 12, 2002



/s/    TODD E. SIMPSONDate



Todd E. Simpson Vice President, Finance and Administration, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 60358 Summary Calendar

JOHN DA SILVA PAZ, also known as John Paz

,

Petitioner

v.

LORETTA LYNCH, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL

,
Respondent

Petition s for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A057 077 516

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

John Da Silva Paz (Paz) is a native and citizen of the Philippines who
was admitted to the United States in 2004 on an immigrant visa. In March
2012, a federal court convicted Paz on his guilty plea to conspiring to commit
bank fraud as charged in an indictment asserting a loss amount of more than
$400,000. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 1349. Concluding that Paz was removable
based on his conviction for an aggravated felony in which the loss exceeded

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 23, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-60358 Document: 00513517846 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2016N o. 15

- 60358

2 $10,000 , an immigration judge ordered him removed to the Philippines. See 8

U .S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), (U), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). T he Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissed Paz’s appeal. He petitions for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review a final order remov ing an alien based on

his co nviction for an aggravated felony. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) ; Nehme v.

INS , 252 F.3d 415, 420 (5th Cir. 2001). But we may examine “whether the
specific conditions exist that bar [ our ] jurisdiction over the merits,” i.e.,
whether the petitioner is an alien removable for “committing the type of crime
that” precludes our review. Nehme , 252 F.3d at 420 . We examine that question

de novo. Id. at 421; see Rodriguez v. Holder , 705 F.3d 207, 210 (5th Cir. 2013)

. The BIA relied on record evidence of the fraud count of Paz’s indictment
and of Paz’s plea of guilty as charged in that count to conclude that Paz had
committed an aggravated felony. See Nijhawan v. Holder , 557 U.S. 29, 42

- 43
(2009). This evidence showed that his victim s’ losses resulted from his crime.

S ee id.

We conclude that t he record f urnishes clear and convincing evidence

support ing the determination of the amount of loss caused by Paz and the BIA’s

conclusion that he is removable as an aggravate d felon and conclude further

that this evidence was “ reasonable, substantial, and probative.” Arguelles

Olivares v. Mukasey , 526 F.3d 171, 179

- 80 (5th Cir. 2008) ; see also Nijhawan

, 557 U.S. at 42. Consequently, we leave the BIA’s ruling undisturbed and deny
the petition for review. See Arguelles

- Olivares , 526 F.3d at 179.

PETITION DENIED. Case: 15-60358 Document: 00513517846 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2016
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1470 

To amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001 to require the provision of chiropractic care 

and services to veterans at all Department of Veterans Affairs medical 

centers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 12, 2007 

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

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care 

Programs Enhancement Act of 2001 to require the provision of chiropractic care and services to veterans at all 

Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers. 

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 ‘‘Chiropractic Care 

5 Available to All Veterans Act’’. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1470 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROGRAM FOR PROVISION OF CHIROPRACTIC 

2 CARE AND SERVICES TO VETERANS. 

3 Section 204(c) of the Department of Veterans Affairs 

4 Health Care Programs Enhancement Act of 2001 (38 

5 U.S.C. 1710 note) is amended— 

6 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ before ‘‘The program’’; 

7 and 

8 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

9 paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(2) The program shall be carried out at not fewer 

11 than 75 medical centers by not later than December 31, 

12 2009, and at all medical centers by not later than Decem13 ber 31, 2011.’’. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 184 (Thursday, September 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24023]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, September 29, 2010; 11 a.m.-12 Noon.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Closed to the Public.

Matter To Be Considered

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters. For a recorded message containing the latest agenda 
information, call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: September 21, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24023 Filed 9-21-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1635 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1635

      To reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
                       Determination Act of 2000.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 21, 2007

   Mr. Sali introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committees on Natural 
     Resources and Appropriations, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
                       Determination Act of 2000.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY SELF-
              DETERMINATION ACT OF 2000.

    (a) Reauthorization.--The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note; Public Law 106-393) is 
amended--
            (1) in titles I and II--
                    (A) by striking ``2006'' each place it appears and 
                inserting ``2007''; and
                    (B) by striking ``2007'' each place it appears and 
                inserting ``2008'';
            (2) in section 203(e)(3)(B), by striking clauses (iv), (v), 
        and (vi) and inserting the following:
                            ``(iv) For each of fiscal years 2004 
                        through 2007, 50 percent.'';
            (3) in section 303, by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
        ``2007''; and
            (4) in section 401, by striking ``2006'' and inserting 
        ``2007''.
    (b) Funding Offset.--To offset the costs of the amendments made by 
subsection (a), there is hereby rescinded an amount equal to .00086 
percent of the budget authority provided (or obligation limit imposed) 
for fiscal year 2007 for any non-defense discretionary account pursuant 
to division B of the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (Public 
Law 109-289), as amended by Public Law 110-5.
                                 <all>
```
The Board of Directors

PSS World Medical, Inc.

 

Re:   Registration Statement File No. 333-114004 on Form S-3 and Nos. 33-80657, 33-90464, 333-15043, 333-64185, 33-85004, 33-97756, 33-99046, 33-97754, 333-30427, 333-50526, and 333-58272 on Form S-8

 

With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our report dated August 4, 2005 related to our review of interim financial information.

 

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the Act), such report is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm, or a report prepared or certified by an independent registered public accounting firm within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

 

 

KPMG LLP

 

Jacksonville, Florida

August 4, 2005
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jackie WAFFER.

No. 2010-KO-2382.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 4, 2011.

In re Waffer, Jackie; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Ouachita, 4th Judicial District Court Div. I, No. 03-F0707; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-210-KA.

Denied.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00059

- CR

A NTHONY W HITE J R

. , Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ On Ap peal from the 371st District Court

of Tarrant County ( 1512359D )

March 3, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

was no error in the trial court’s ju dg ment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Dana Womack

Justice Dana Womack
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1512 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 1512

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 12, 2008

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
      To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for 
compensation to States incarcerating undocumented aliens charged with a 
                  felony or two or more misdemeanors.

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

SECTION 1. ASSISTANCE FOR STATES INCARCERATING UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS 
              CHARGED WITH CERTAIN CRIMES.

    Section 241(i)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
U.S.C. 1231(i)(3)(A)) is amended by inserting ``charged with or'' 
before ``convicted''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 8, 2008.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Filed: October 17, 1996

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6228

(CA-94-978-5-BR)

Robert Lee Davis,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

Hubert Stone,

Respondent - Appellee.

ORDER

The Court amends its opinion filed July 31, 1996, as follows:

On the cover sheet, section 3, line 2 -- "W. Earl Britt" is

corrected to read "Malcolm J. Howard."

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk
2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6228

ROBERT LEE DAVIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

HUBERT STONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-94-978-5-BR)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying

relief on his habeas corpus petition, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988), as

amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,

Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1217, and denying his motion for

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a

certificate of appealability is required we deny such a certificate. We dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court.

Davis v. Stone, No. CA-94-978-5-BR (E.D.N.C. Jan. 26, 1996). 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