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

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 2, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

CONSUELO ANGELA YSAIS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER YSAIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-2196

(D.C. No. 1:08-CV-00448-MV-RHS)

(D. N.M.)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before LUCERO, PORFILIO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

Defendant-Appellant Christopher Ysais brought this case in the District of

New Mexico, attempting to remove his New Mexico state court divorce

proceeding to federal court. The district court, concluding that there was no basis

for federal jurisdiction, remanded the divorce case to state court. Mr. Ysais

appealed, and we dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Ysais v. Ysais,

Case No. 08-2219 (10th Cir. Sept. 23, 2008) (order) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)). 

Undeterred, Mr. Ysais later filed a seventy-four-page motion under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60(b), again requesting that the district court take jurisdiction over the case. 

Before the district court could rule on his motion, he filed the notice of appeal

currently before us. 

Appellate Case: 09-2196 Document: 01018395752 Date Filed: 04/02/2010 Page: 1
1 Mr. Ysais also purports to appeal from another as-yet-unadjudicated

motion: his motion demanding a trial by jury on his 60(b) motion. An order

denying this motion would not be a final decision creating jurisdiction in this

court.

-2-

We lack jurisdiction over this appeal for two reasons. First, since the

district court has not ruled on the 60(b) motion, there is no final order of the

district court that could supply us with jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291

(granting courts of appeals “jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the

district courts of the United States.”).1

 Second, “[a]n order remanding a case to

the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or

otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the

denial of a 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of a decision to remand the case

to state court, and cannot and will not consider an appeal from the denial of such

a motion.

This appeal is therefore DISMISSED. We deny Ysais’s motion to proceed

in forma pauperis. None of his other pending motions are authorized by the

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and all of them lack merit. All pending

motions are therefore DENIED.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 09-2196 Document: 01018395752 Date Filed: 04/02/2010 Page: 2
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 51037 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Jimy Marin Reyes**

**- Almendarez,** 

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:18

- CR

- 1059

- 1

Before **Smith, Stewart,** and **Graves,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  *
The attorney appointed to represent Jimy Marin Reyes

- Almendarez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Reyes

- Almendarez has not filed a response. We have

* Pursuant to 5th Cir cuit R ule 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 5th Cir cuit R ule 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 13, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-51037 Document: 00515978559 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/13/2021No. 20

- 51037

2 reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue f or appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R.

42.2

. Case: 20-51037 Document: 00515978559 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/13/2021
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 181 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the 

nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2017 

Mr. GAETZ (for himself, Mr. WESTERMAN, Mr. MARSHALL, Mr. WILLIAMS, 

Mr. ROKITA, Mr. GIBBS, Mr. CRAMER, and Mr. BACON) submitted the 

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with 

respect to the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. 

Whereas the Supreme Court has had a vacant seat since the 

death of Justice Antonin Scalia; 

Whereas Neil Gorsuch is a defender of the intrinsic value of 

human life; 

Whereas Neil Gorsuch is a defender of religious liberty; 

Whereas Neil Gorsuch is a constitutional conservative who 

will honor the ideals of our Founding Fathers; and 

Whereas Neil Gorsuch was previously nominated to the Tenth 

Circuit Court of Appeals and confirmed by the Senate 

unanimously: Now, therefore, be it 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 181 IH 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Rep2 resentatives that— 

3 (1) the House firmly supports the nomination 

4 of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court; and 

5 (2) the Senate should hold a swift confirmation 

6 of this nomination. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
January 20, 1976 

The Honorable Richard R. Gonzales Opinion No. H-767 

County Attorney 

County of Jim Hoqq Re:~ Whether a justice 

Hebbronville; Texas 78361 of the peace reeiqns 

his office on announcing 

his candidacy for a 

second office. 

Dear Mr. Gonzales: 

you have aeked that we render a formal opinion on the 

following questibn,: 

If a Justice of the Peace who has more 

than one 'year remaining of his unexpired 

term announce6 his candidacy for office 

as Director of the Water Control and 

Improvement Dietrict in the same County 

doe8 such candidacy constitute an 

automatic resignation of the office of 

Juetice of the Peace? 

Article 16, section 65 of the Texas Constitution provides 

in relevant ,part: 

Staggering Terms of Office - The following 

officers elected at the General Election 

in November, 1954, and thereafter, shall 

serve for the full terms provided in 

this Constitution: 

. . . 

(j) Justices of the Peace. 

. . * 

p. 3238 
The Honorable Richard R. Gonzales - page 2 ~(H-767) 

Provided, however, if any of ~the 

officer8 named herein shall announce 

their candidacy, or shall in fact became 

a candidate, in any General, Special or 

Primary Election, for any office of 

profit or trust under the laws of this 

State or the United States other than 

the office then held, at any time when 

the unexpired term of the office then 

held shall exceed one (1) year, such 

announcement or such candidacy shall 

constitute an automatic resignation of 

the office then held, and the vacancy~ 

thereby created shall be filled pursuant 

to,law in the same manner as other 

vacancies for such office are filled. 

A director of a water control and improvement district 

must meet certain qualifications (Water Code 6 51.072), is 

elected (Water Code S 51.073), is required to take an oath 

of office (Water code S 51.078) and is required to execute 

a bond (Water Code S 51.079). We believe it is clear that 

he occuvies an office of trust under the laws of this 

State. -See Willie v. Potts, 377 S.W. 2a 622 (Tex. Sup. 

1964). - 

Accordingly, under the clear language of the ~Constitution, a justice of the peace with more than one year remaining 

on his term automatically resigns his of.fice an announcing 

his candidacy for director of a water control and improvement 

district. See Rsmires 5 Flares, 505 S.W.Zd 406 (Tex.Civ. 

ILpp. -- SanXitonio73, writef’a n.r.e.1. 

SUMMARY 

A justice of the peace with an,unexpired 

term of more than one year automatically 

resigns his office on announcing his 

candidacy for director of a water control 

and improvement district. 

Attorney General of Texas 

p. 3239 
. 

The Honorable Richard R., Gonzales - page 3 (N-767) 

APPROVED: 

Opinion Committee 

jwb 

p. 3240
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). SS/ R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B E N J A M I N P E R E Z - L O P E Z ; e t a l., P et i t i o n ers, v. E R I C H . H O L D E RJ r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 74492 A ge nc yN os . A 096- 361- 925

A 096- 361- 926 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d F e bruary16, 2010 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , G O U L D , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B e nj am i n P e r e z - L ope z and F abi ol aP e r e z , na t i ve s and c i t i z e ns of M e xi c o, pet i t i on pro se f

or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order de ny i ng the i rm ot i on t o r e ope n pr oc e e di ngs t o appl yf orpr ot e c t i on unde rthe



# FI LED FEB 24 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSS S/ Res ea r ch 07- 74492 2 Co n v e n t i o n A g a i n s tTo rtu r e ( “ CA T” ) . W e h av e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r8 U . S. C. § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , H

e v . G on zales , 501 F . 3d 1128, 1130- 31 ( 9th C i r . 2007) , and w e de nythe pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g P e titio n e r s ’ m o tio n to re op en as un t i m el y bec ause P et i t i on er s f i l ed i tm ore than n i nety day s a ft erthe fi nal o r d e ro f r e m o v a l. See8 U . S. C. § 1 2 2 9 a ( c ) ( 7 ) ( C) ( i ) . Th e e x c e p t i o n t o th e t i me lim it b a s e do n c h an g e dc o u n tryc o n d itio n s d o e s n o t ap p lyb e c au s e P e titio n e r s d id n o t p r e s e n t m a te r ia l e v id e n c e o f c h an g e dc o u n tryc o n d itio n s th a t w a s n o t av a ilab le an dc o u ldn o t h av e b e e n p r e s e n te da t th e p r e v io u s p r o c e e d in g . See 8 C. F. R. § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( ii) ; He , 5 0 1 F .3 da t 1 1 3 2 - 3 3 . M o r e o v e r , P e titio n e r s f a ile dto in c lu d e th e ap p r o p r ia te ap p lic a tio n a lo n g w ith th e irr e qu e s t to ap p lyf o rC A T r e lie f

. See 8 C . F . R . § 1 00 3. 2(c) (1). P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W DE NI E D.S S/ Res ea r ch 07- 74492 3
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**Section 1350Certification of Chief Executive Officer**

        In connection with the quarterly report ofNano-Proprietary, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter endedSeptember 30, 2004, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Marc W. Eller, the Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, 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 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        2.     The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of theCompany as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the report.

 

| Date:      October29, 2004 |   /s/ Marc W. EllerMarc W. Eller Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
|----------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 13, 2014

NO. 03

- 11

- 00101

- CV

DPRS 15th Street, Inc; Cliff Woerner, Individually and d/ b/a Woerner Interests; and

Gail Woerner, Appellant

v.

Texas Skyline, Ltd.; Skyline Inte rests, LLC; and Pecos & 15th, Ltd., by and through Skyline Interests, LLC, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, HE NSON, AND GOODWIN

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN ; JUSTICE H ENSON NOT PARTICIPATING

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on October 12, 2010. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s judgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. The

appellant s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27303]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Defense Acquisitions Regulations System

48 CFR Part 225

RIN 0750-AG59

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Trade 
Agreements--New Thresholds (DFARS 2009-D040)

AGENCY: Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense 
(DoD).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: DoD is adopting as final, without change, the interim rule 
that amended the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 
(DFARS) to incorporate increased thresholds for application of the 
World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement and the Free 
Trade Agreements, as determined by the United States Trade 
Representative.

DATES: Effective Date: October 29, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Amy Williams, 703-602-0328.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    DoD published an interim rule in the Federal Register on June 8, 
2010 (75 FR 32637) to amend the clause prescriptions at DFARS 225.1101 
and 225.7503 to reflect increased thresholds for application of the 
trade agreements. The comment period closed on August 9, 2010. DoD 
received no comments on the interim rule. DoD has therefore adopted the 
interim rule as a final rule without change.

II. Executive Order 12866

    This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review 
under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated 
September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    DoD certifies that this final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the 
meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., 
because this rule does not impose economic burdens on contractors. The 
purpose and effect of this rule is to adjust the dollar threshold 
changes to keep pace with inflation and thus maintain the status quo.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule affects the certification and information 
collection requirements in the provisions at DFARS 252.225-7020 and 
252.225-7035, currently approved under Office of Management and Budget 
Control Number 0704-0229. However, there is no impact on the estimated 
burden hours. The dollar threshold changes are in line with inflation 
and maintain the status quo.

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 225

    Government procurement.

Ynette R. Shelkin,
Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

Interim Rule Adopted as Final Without Change

0
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR part 225 published at 75 
FR 32637 on June 8, 2010, is adopted as final without change.

[FR Doc. 2010-27303 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-08-P
```
H. Res. 275 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

April 26, 2017. 

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 

(H.R. 1695) to amend title 17, United States Code, to provide additional responsibilities for the Register of Copyrights, 

and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 

dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 

the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 

bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 

Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 

shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 

rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 

recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed 

in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original bill 

for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
2 

•HRES 275 EH 

text of Rules Committee Print 115–13. That amendment in 

the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 

points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 

substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in 

the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 

this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in 

the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 

Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 

shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 

divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 

shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 

to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 

the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 

amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 

the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have 

been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in 

the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of 

the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of 

a substitute made in order as original text. The previous 

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
3 

•HRES 275 EH 

motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. 

SEC. 2. House Resolution 254 is laid on the table. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
2 min read

# Project Mercury Overview – Introduction

### NASA

Nov 30, 2006

Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

            - Introduction
            - Objectives and Guidelines
            - Astronaut Selection
            - Summary

The actual beginning of the effort that resulted in manned space flight cannot be pinpointed although it is known that the thought has been in the mind of man throughout recorded history. It was only in the last decade, however, that technology had developed to the point where man could actually transform his ideas into hardware to achieve space flight. Specific studies and tests conducted by government and industry culminating in 1958 indicated the feasibility of manned space flight. Implementation was initiated to establish a national manned space-flight project, later named Project Mercury, on October 7, 1958. The life of Project Mercury was about 4 2/3 years, from the time of its official go-ahead to the completion of the 34-hour orbital mission of Astronaut Cooper. 

During this period, much has been learned about man’s capabilities in the space environment and his capabilities in earthbound activities which enabled the successful accomplishment of the objectives of the Mercury Project in this relatively short period. It is the purpose of this paper to review the more significant facets of the project beginning with the objectives of the project and the guidelines which were established to govern the activity. As in any form of human endeavor, there are certain signs which serve as the outward indication of activity and progress. For the Mercury Project, these signs were the major full-scale flight tests.1

These tests will be reviewed with particular emphasis on schedule, the individual mission objectives, and the results from each mission. Then, the organization with which management directed the activities of Project Mercury will be explained, particularly with respect to those internal interfaces between major segments of NASA and those external interfaces with contractors and other governmental departments.

 The resources expended during the project will be explained with discussions on manpower and cost. In addition, the major results of the project will be discussed as will those areas which presented severe obstacles to technical progress.

 1*. These are excerpts from a NASA book entitled, NASA SP-45, “Mercury Project Summary, Including Results of the Fourth Manned Orbital Flight, May 15 and 16, 1963. The publication date is October 1963.*

More About Project Mercury

## Explore More

6 min readProject Mercury Overview – Objectives and GuidelinesArticle										17 years ago									

13 min readProject Mercury Overview – Astronaut SelectionArticle										17 years ago									

2 min readProject Mercury Overview – SummaryArticle										17 years ago
# T-34C – NASA

Official National Aeronautics and Space Administration Website

- NASA Photographer Honored for Thrilling Inverted In-Flight Image Riding in the back seat of a car can be boring. Riding in the back of a NASA aircraft is exhilarating, especially for photographers capturing NASA’s story. Jim Ross, photo lead at NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center in Edwards, California, was awarded first place for an image he took while flying upside down in a [&#8230;]
# The Invisible Network – NASA

Official National Aeronautics and Space Administration Website
C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS I N R E TERESA CORRAL -L ERMA, RELAT OR . § § § § § No . 0 8- 11 -0 01 46 -C V AN ORI GI

NAL PROCEEDI

NG

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Relator filed a

petition for writ of pr ohibition and writ of mandamus, conte nding that the trial court lac ks jurisdiction to conduct a trial on the issue of attorney ’s fe es bec ause its plenar y power has expired and a

n appea l is pending in this Court. See I n re Miranda , 142 S.W .3d 354, 356 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2004, orig . proce eding )(holdingthat writ of mandamus will i ssue if trial c ourt e nte rs vo id o rd e r a ft e r i ts p le na ry po we r e xpir e s) ; In re Nguye n , 1 5 5 S. W. 3 d 1 9 1 , 1 9 4 ( T e x. App.--T yler 2003, orig . proce eding )(holdingthat writ of prohibition will iss ue to enf orce jurisdiction of appellate court). Re lator has the bur den of showingthat she is entitled to an extraordinary

writ. See I

n re Am. Nat’l Ins. Co. , 242 S.W .3d 831, 834 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2007, or ig . p ro c e e din g ); T EX .R.A PP .P. 52.7(a)( 1). Relator ha s not met this burden. Acc ording ly , the petition is denied. May 25, 2011 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C . J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.