alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF C.J.P., A

JUVENILE

. '

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 11

- 00183

- C V

Appeal from the

65 th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 1000222 )

MEMORANDUM O PINION

On February 10, 2011, Appellant , a juvenile, entered a written stipulation wherein

he admitted all of the allegations of delinquent conduct set forth in Count I ( engaging in

graffiti causing a loss less than $2 0,000) and Count II (theft over $50 but less than $500) of

the State’s third

- amended petition. T EX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 51.03( a )(1) ( West 2008)

.

T he juvenile court conducted a disp osition hearing on March 3, 2011. The juvenile court

thereafter entered an order of adjudication an d placed Appellant on supervised juvenile

probation until Appellant’s 18 th birthday

. Appellant appeals from t he juvenile court’s

denial of Appellant’s motion for new trial. We affirm.2

Appellant ’ s court

- appointed counsel has file d a brief in which she has concluded

that the appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of

Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied , 388 U.S.

924, 87 S.Ct. 2094, 18 L.Ed.2 d 1377 (1967), by advancing contentions which counsel says

might arguably support the appeal. See High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978); Currie v. State , 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State , 485

S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State , 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App.

1969) ; see also In re D.A.S. , 973 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Tex. 1998)(Texas Supreme Court held

that the Anders procedure applies to juvenile appeals and noted that, although

juvenile

- delinquency proceedings are classified as civil, their nature is quasi

- criminal) . A

copy of counsel ’ s brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of

his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been

filed.

The record reflects that Appellant executed in writing a waiver and consent in open

court with the consent of Appellant’s attorney in accordance with TEX. FAM. CODE

ANN. § 51.09

, and Appellant made a judicial confession admitting his guilt.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel ’ s brief and agree that the appeal

is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might

arguably support the appeal. A discussion of the contentions advanced in counsel ’ s brief

would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the sta te.3

The judgment is affirmed.

GUA DALUPE RIVERA, Justice

February 8, 2012

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, J., and Antcliff, J.
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 18-1574V

UNPUBLISHED

GEORGIE FLETCHER,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: March 2, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

Matthew F. Belanger, Faraci Lange, LLP, Rochester, NY, for petitioner.

Christine Mary Becer, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On October 10, 2018, Georgie Fletcher filed a petition for compensation under 

the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she developed Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) 

as a result of a November 3, 2015 influenza (“flu”) vaccine. Petition at 1. The case was 

assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On March 2, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, Respondent agrees that “petitioner suffered GBS following a flu 

vaccine within the Table time period, and there is not a preponderance of the medical 

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to 

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa (2012).
2

evidence that petitioner’s GBS was due to a factor unrelated to the vaccination.” Id. at

4. Respondent further agrees that the claim “meets the statutory severity requirements 

because petitioner experienced sequelae of her GBS for more than six months . . . [and] 

petitioner has satisfied all legal prerequisites for compensation under the Act.” Id. at 5.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 1 0

- 4 0 7 4 3 S u m m a r y C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. J A M E S R U S T I N S T E W A R T , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e E a s t e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 1 : 0 9

- C R

- 1 5 9

- 1

B e f o r e H I G G I N B O T H A M , S M I T H , a n d H A Y N E S , C i r c u i t J u d g e s P E R C U R I A M : *
T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t J a m e s R u s t i n S t e w a r t h a s m o v e d f

o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s

v
. C a l i f o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , a n d U n i t e d S t a t e s v
. F l o r e s , 6 3 2 F

. 3 d 2 2 9 ( 5 t h C i r
. 2 0 1 1 )

. S t e w a r t h a s n o t f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. W e h a v e r e v i e w e d c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f

a n d t h e r e l e v a n t p o r t i o n s o f t h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t e d t h e r e i n
. W e c o n c u r w i t h

c o u n s e l ’s a s s e s s m e n t t h a t t h e a p p e a l p r e s e n t s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e l l a t e

r e v i e w
. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D ,
c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May12 , 20 11 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 10-40743 Document: 00511475844 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2011
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30240 Summary Calendar

SHAHED MUHAMMAD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF NEW ORLEANS; NEW ORLEANS POLICE DEPARTMENT; RICHARD PENNINGTON, Superintendent of the New Orleans Police Department,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CV-393-F

November 7, 2001

Before GARWOOD, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Shahed Muhammad filed suit against the City of New Orleans

(City), the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD), and NOPD

Superintende nt Richard Pennington alleging that he had been

discharged as a NOPD officer in violation of the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,2

and L A

. C IV

. C ODE A NN

. art. 2315.

The district court found that the summary judgment evidence

submitted by the de fendants was conclusive that Muhammad was not

qualified to perform the essential functions of a NOPD officer.

See McInnis v. Alamo Cmty. Coll. Dist. , 207 F.3d 276, 279-80 (5th

Cir. 2000). Muhammad produced no evidence to show he can function

a s a NOPD officer, an issue on which he would have the burden of

proof at trial. The district court did not err in granting summary

judgment in favor of the defendants on the ADA claim. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 56(c); Little v. Liquid Air Corp. , 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.

1994) (en banc).

The district court dismissed the Title VII claim under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because Muhammad’s complaint does not make a ny
allegation that he had been discriminated against b ased on race,

color, religion, sex, or national origin. M cDonnell-Douglas Corp.

v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973); Mayberry v. Vought Aircraft

Co. , 55 F.3d 1086, 1089 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court did

not err in dismissing this claim.

The district court dismissed Muhammad’s state law tort claim

because article 2315 does not provide a cause of action for

em ployment discrimination. On appeal, Muhammad failed to

adequately brief his challenge of this dismissal. He did not list

this an issue, did not mention it in his summary of argument and

did not specify any standard of review, m ade no citations to any3

case law interpreting article 2315, and did not even specify which

of his factual allegation s would support a tort action under

article 2315. For the same reasons, Muhammad has failed to brief

his assertion that he prese nted adequate claims of retaliatory

discharge. Accordingly, we will not consider those issues. S ee

Oden v. Oktibbeha County, Miss., 246 F.3d 458, 470 n.12 (5th Cir.

2001); Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9).

AFFIRMED
COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS TEXAS CUSTOM POOL S, I NC., F/K/A RI VERBEN D POOL S, I

NC., Appellant, v. AL L AN CL AYTONand MI RI AM CL AYTON , Appellee s. § § § § § § No. 08-07-00197- CV

Appea l from the 393rd Judi cial District Court of De nton County , Texas (TC# 2000-60215-393)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION Pending be fore the Court is a joint mot ion to dism iss this appea l in accor dance with T E X .R.A P P .P. 42.1(a). The parties r epre sent that they have r eac hed an a g ree ment to settle and compromise all cla ims and cause s of ac tion in the underly ing c ase, a

nd reque st that this C ourt vacate the trial c ourt’s judg ment and dismiss the appea l. An intermediate cour

t of appe als is authorized to vacate a tria l court’s judg ment and dismiss the under ly ing c ase. SeeT E X .R.A P P .P. 43.2(e). F urther, T exas Rule of Appellate Procedur e 42.1 per

mits an appellate c ourt to dispose of an a ppeal pur suant to a settlement ag ree ment. T E X .R.A P P .P. 42.1(a)( 2). We may rende r judg ment eff

ectua ting the pa

rties’ settlement ag ree ment, set aside the tr ial court’s judg ment, and re mand the ca se to the trial cour t for r endition of judg ment in acc ordanc e with the agree ment, or abate the appe al and pe rmit the trial court to conduc t proce eding s to effe ctuate the ag ree ment. T E X .R.A P P .P. 42.1(a)( 2). While we a re a uthorized to vacate the trial cour t’s judgme nt and dismiss t he under ly ing c ase, w e ar e notauthorized to both vacate the judg ment and dismiss the appea l.

There fore , having considere d the motion and the ac tion requested by the par ties, we will GRANT the motion in part and va cate the trial cour t’s judgme nt dated Mar ch 19, 2007, without consideration of the merits and re mand the ca se to the trial cour t for fur ther proc eeding s in acc ordanc e with the settlement a g ree ment. Wit h reg ard to the pa rties’ re quest that we dismiss the appe al, the motion is denied. Pursuant to the settlement ag ree ment, costs will be taxed ag ainst the party

incurringthe same. SeeT E X .R.A P P .P. 42.1(d). We direc t the Clerk of the Court to issue the mandate of

the Court immediately . Aug ust 31, 2010 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ .

-2-
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 949

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the disposition of a

firearm to, and the possession of a firearm by, nonpermanent resident aliens.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 5, 1997

Mrs. LOWEY (for herself, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, and Mr. ENGEL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the disposition of a firearm to, and the possession of a firearm

by, nonpermanent resident aliens.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION AGAINST THE DISPOSITION OF A

4 FIREARM TO, AND THE POSSESSION OF A

5 FIREARM BY, NONPERMANENT RESIDENT

6 ALIENS.

7 (a) PROHIBITIONS.—Paragraph (5) of each of sub8 sections (d) and (g) of section 922 of title 18, United

9 States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘, or is not lawfully
2

•HR 949 IH

1 admitted for permanent residence in the United States

2 under the Immigration and Nationality Act’’ before the

3 semicolon.

4 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section

5 922(s)(3)(B)(v) of such title is amended by inserting

6 ‘‘, or not lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the

7 United States under the Immigration and Nationality

8 Act’’ before the semicolon.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          55,955
<SECURITIES>                                   565,479
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,793
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,365
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               216,980
<PP&E>                                         480,182
<DEPRECIATION>                                  56,283
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,240,288
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          126,378
<BONDS>                                        466,368
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          242,895
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            56
<OTHER-SE>                                     387,235
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,240,288
<SALES>                                        102,281
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               102,281
<CGS>                                           94,032
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  249,460
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,412
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (4,227)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (149,558)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (149,558)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (19,547)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (169,105)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.74)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.74)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 413 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 172
105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 413

                          [Report No. 105-501]

    Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 1502) entitled the 
 ``District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 29, 1998

   Mrs. Myrick, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 1502) entitled the 
 ``District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997''.

    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider in the House the bill (S. 1502) entitled the 
``District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997''. 
The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 
without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate on the bill 
equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader or his designee 
and a Member opposed to the bill; and (2) one motion to commit.
                                     

                                                 House Calendar No. 172

105th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 413

                          [Report No. 105-501]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

    Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 1502) entitled the 
 ``District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 1997''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 29, 1998

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
Exhibit 31.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Michael P. ODonnell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Xerium Technologies, Inc. (the Registrant);

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;

3. Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;

4. The Registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have:

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrants most recent fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrants auditors and the audit committee of Registrants board
of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants internal control over financial
reporting.



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|March 5, 2007                                       
|                                                    
|/s/ Michael P. ODonnell                            
|Michael P. ODonnell                                
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer
|(Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Reportof United Pan Am Financial Corp (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Guillermo Bron certifies in hiscapacity as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

(a)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Actof 1934, as amended, and 

 

(b)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company. 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto signed this Certification as of May 5, 2003. 

 

/s/    Guillermo Bron

Guillermo Bron 

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer