alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-10-00306-CV 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL A 

NOVEMBER 24, 2010 

JAMES S. JONES, M.D., APPELLANT 

v. 

HARDEMAN COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT BY AND 

THROUGH ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS; SCOTT NAIL, 

AMANDA DARLING AND WYLIE TABOR, APPELLEES 

 FROM THE 46TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARDEMAN COUNTY; 

NO. 10,565; HONORABLE DAN MIKE BIRD, JUDGE 

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before us is the motion of appellees to dismiss the appeal of appellant James S. 

Jones, M.D. Our consideration of the motion is guided by the following procedural 

history of this case. 

 This appeal is accelerated. The deadline for filing Jones’s brief was September 

20, 2010. When the brief was not filed we notified Jones in writing that unless his brief 

was filed on or before October 14, along with a motion to extend time for filing the brief, 
2 

his appeal was subject to dismissal without notice for want of prosecution.1 Jones did 

not file a brief but filed a motion for additional time to file his brief, requesting an 

extension until October 18. We granted the motion and ordered the brief due October 

18, but Jones did not file his brief. By letter of October 25, we ordered Jones to file his 

brief and a motion for extension of time for filing the brief on or before November 4. 

Jones has made no response to our order. 

On November 1, appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal asserting Jones 

has not timely prosecuted his appeal and did not comply with an order of the Court.2

 

According to the certificate of conference attached to the motion, counsel for appellees 

was unable to confer with counsel for Jones about the motion by telephone but left a 

message which received no response. We held the motion for more than ten days but 

Jones has filed no response. 

 Because Jones did not timely file his brief and did not comply with an order of the 

Court, we grant appellees’ motion and dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. [Civ]. P. 38.8(a), 

42.3(b),(c). 

Per Curiam 

 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1) and 42.3(b). 

2 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b)(c).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1934

EDITA MAGDIRILA BAUA, a/k/a Edita Magdirila,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: March 28, 2014 Decided: April 4, 2014

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, 

Virginia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney 

General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Dalin R. Holyoak, 

Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Edita Magdirila Baua, a native and citizen of the 

Philippines, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (Board) denying her motion to reconsider. 

We have reviewed the administrative record and Baua’s 

contentions and conclude that the Board did not abuse its 

discretion in denying reconsideration. See 8 C.F.R. 

§ 1003.2(a), (b)(1) (2013). Accordingly, we deny the petition 

for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In re: Baua

(B.I.A. June 27, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

vs. CRIMINAL NO. 11-00270-CG

ELIZABETH VONCILE GRAY

PORTER,

 Defendant. 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on two motions by the defendant 

seeking a sentence reduction (Docs. 178, 179).

In the first motion (Doc. 178) she seeks a reduction pursuant to 18 

U.S.C. §3582(c)(2), which permits modification of a sentence that was 

imposed based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by 

the Sentencing Commission. Although the sentencing guidelines applicable 

to illegal controlled substances have been lowered, that provision does not 

take effect until November 1, 2014. Defendant’s motion will be addressed by 

this Court once the new guideline provisions takes effect under the law.

In the second motion (Doc. 179), the defendant seeks a reduction 

pursuant to Rule 35, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. A reduction 

pursuant to that Rule is available only to correct an arithmetical, technical or 

other clear error within 14 days after sentencing, or when a motion is made 

by the Government for a reduction due to the substantial assistance of the 

Case 1:11-cr-00270-CG-N Document 180 Filed 09/30/14 Page 1 of 2
defendant in the investigation or prosecution of another person. Neither of 

those circumstances are applicable in defendant’s case, and her second 

motion is therefore DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of September, 2014.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:11-cr-00270-CG-N Document 180 Filed 09/30/14 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1609 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1609

To amend title 38, United States Code, to adjust the effective date of 
certain reductions and discontinuances of compensation, dependency and 
indemnity compensation, and pension under the laws administered by the 
                     Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 14, 2023

 Mr. Steil (for himself and Mr. Pappas) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to adjust the effective date of 
certain reductions and discontinuances of compensation, dependency and 
indemnity compensation, and pension under the laws administered by the 
                     Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

    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 ``Survivor Benefits Fairness Act''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE OF CERTAIN REDUCTIONS AND DISCONTINUANCES OF 
              COMPENSATION, DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION, AND 
              PENSION UNDER LAWS ADMINISTERED BY SECRETARY OF VETERANS 
              AFFAIRS.

    (a) In General.--Section 5112(b)(1) of title 38, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``last day of the month before'' and 
inserting ``last day of the month during which''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to a reduction or discontinuance of compensation, 
dependency or indemnity compensation, or pension by reason of a 
marriage, remarriage, or death occurring on or after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32

          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  Quarterly  report on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended
September 30, 2006 (the "Report") of FMS Financial  Corporation  (the "Company")
as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission,  we,  Craig W.  Yates,
President and Chief Executive Officer, and Channing L. Smith, Vice President and
Chief  Financial  Officer,  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) 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.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                    <C>


/s/Craig W. Yates                        /s/Channing L. Smith
-------------------------------------    ------------------------------------------
Craig W. Yates                           Channing L. Smith
President and Chief Executive Officer    Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)            (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

Date: November 13, 2006                  Date: November 13, 2006

</TABLE>
10929.

#### Friedman *v.*Ice Delivery Company.

Decided March 3, 1920.

Complaint; from Chatham superior court — Judge Meldrim. August 6, 1919.

*Osborne, Lawrence & Abrahams,*for plaintiff.

*Oliver & Oliver, Saussy & Saussy,*for defendant.

Broyles, C. J.

1. The court properly overruled the 1st and 3d grounds of the plaintiff’s demurrer to the defendant’s answer. If the court erred in overruling the other grounds of the demurrer, the error was rendered harmless by the subsequent ruling of the .court, and the specific amount of the verdict returned, by direction of the court, in favor of the defendant. See, in this connection, *Central of Georgia Ry. Co.*v. *Butler Marble*& *Granite Co.,*8 *Ga. App.*1 (6), 8 (6) (68 S. E. 775).

2. Under the pleadings and the evidence, the special grounds of the motion for new trial are without substantial merit.

3. In this case there was no material issue of fact to be submitted to the jury, but the controlling question was one of law, to wit, the construction of the contract — the breach of which by the plaintiff formed the basis of the defendant’s counter-claim for damages. Under all the particular facts of the case, the court did not err in holding that the contract was valid and enforceable, or in directing a verdict in favor' of the defendant for the specific amount stated therein.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Luke and Bloodworth, JJ., concur.*
! " #$%&'

#()*+**+)*	)$*$#	*

,


----------"----------

#

".
















$"
(/

#(/


01 .
/


!
 ".

1 .
/

(Use Date of Last Amended Judgment if Any) Defendant’s Attorney

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR SENTENCE REDUCTION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)

#2. ,


 ,

,
3 
 !"" ,
  
#$

%&'
 ,

..2".
.2"
4"
 
0
"


,,"

" 4"
5 
064

07

.


46,
#

"

$..""2 " #$

%88 9,"

" ,.9: ,
206"
.
"
,#;%3


,
"

""
,#$%&''&9,

<
,,
6
22040
9

IT IS ORDERED,,
."/

+()+ ;	(*+,


="2
 "06.2"
"


.2".
(as reflected in 

the last judgment issued)  .,"is reduced to 

(Complete Parts I and II of Page 2 when motion is granted)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

+<
2",
7"
2
9002"",
> .

 ",00
.



IT IS SO ORDERED



/

Judge’s signature

+


/

(if different from order date) Printed name and title

 Southern District of Alabama

HEIDI ELIZABETH HANCOCK 14-0199-WS

August 6, 2015

✔

✔

February 11, 2016 s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

At a sentencing hearing held on August 5, 2015, Hancock was held accountable for 808 grams of pseudoephedrine,

which is equivalent to 8,080 kilograms of marijuana for sentencing purposes, yielding a base offense level of 32. After a

three-level enhancement for substantial risk of harm and a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility,

Hancock's total offense level was 32. With her criminal history category of IV, Hancock's guideline range was 168 to

210 months. Pursuant to the Government's 5K1.1 motion for downward departure (doc. 198), the Court sentenced

Hancock to a term of imprisonment of 84 months, a 50% reduction from the low end of the guideline range. Hancock

now moves for modification of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2) based on retroactive application of USSG

Amendment 782. The problem is that Hancock has already received the full benefit of Amendment 782, which went into

effect on November 1, 2014, nine months before her sentencing hearing. The calculated base offense level applied to

the drug quantity at sentencing fully takes into account Amendment 782 (prior to which 8,080 kg of marijuana would

have equated to a base offense level of 34, not the base offense level of 32 applied here). Therefore, Hancock is

ineligible for sentencing relief under section 3582(c)(2).

Case 1:14-cr-00199-TFM-MU Document 232 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:

<pageID>
#### R. M. Mosby, Assignee, *v.*Hatcher, Perin, et al.

Promissory Note — Plea of Payment — Evidence.

A plea of payment to a suit on a debt is good which sets up a contemporaneous contract showing that plaintiff had agreed to accept as payment the performance of certain advertising and supplying certain newspapers, which the defendant had performed and supplied.

Evidence.

Where an action at law is submitted to the judge without a jury, the court’s finding on the facts will not be reversed unless it be palpably wrong.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT.

June 20, 1874.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The answer herein sets up a contract entered into by Hatcher, Perin, *et al.,*with Handy, Hughes & Co., at the time of the execution of the note, by which the payees agreed to accept as part payment thereof, the performance of certain advertising, and the supplying to certain subscribers to the Democrat Newspaper, of daily and weekly issues of another city newspaper to the extent of their paid subscriptions to the Democrat. Appellees aver the performance of said contemporaneous undertaking, and ask to be credited by the agreed value thereof, as a payment on their note.

We regard this as a good plea of payment, but if it is not, then it certainly amounts to a set-off. If it be treated as a set-off the judgment is correct, for the want of a reply. If it be treated as a plea of payment, then the proof sufficiently supports it.

Bowman proves the stipulations of the contract. He was'advised as to the number of subscriptions appellees agreed to fill, and the amount of advertising they agreed to do. He states that the parties having contracts with the Democrat office, had, up to the date of his deposition, over two and one-half years after the date of the note, made no complaint of the failure of appellees to fill their subscrip*11tions, or to finish their advertising. From their statements it may fairly be inferred that appellees performed their agreement; and they are not to be denied relief because they might have made more satisfactory proof.

*Fairleigh, for appellant.*

*Bramblett, for appellees.*

But if all had doubts on this subject, we could not reverse on the evidence alone. There was no reason why appellant should sue. The obligors in. the note in equity, and the lien of Bars did not give the chancellor jurisdiction of the contest between Mosby and the appellees. The instruction of the action in equity, and its submission to the chancellor, was, in effect, the submission of an action at law to the judge without the intervention of a jury. In such a case the judgment will not be reversed on the facts unless it be palpably wrong. Such is not the case here.

Judgment *affirmed.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEBRA A. CUNNINGHAM, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-0716-CG-M

)

SPRINGHILL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

On January 9, 2006 the plaintiff was ordered to pay the filing fee of $250.00 by February

8, 2006, and was warned that failure to pay the fee would result in dismissal of this action for

failure to prosecute. On February 21, 2006, the Magistrate granted the plaintiff’s motion for

extension of time, and gave the plaintiff until April 21, 206 to pay the filing fee (Doc. 5);

however, to date such fee has not been paid. 

Therefore, due to the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the court’s order and to prosecute

this action, and upon consideration of the alternatives that are available to the court, it is

ORDERED that this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to comply with the court’s orders and to prosecute

this action. See Link v. Wabash R. R., 370 U.S. 626, 630, 82 S.Ct. 1836, 8 L.Ed.2d 734 (1962)

(interpreting Rule 41(b) not to restrict the court’s inherent authority to dismiss sua sponte an

action for lack of prosecution); 

DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of June, 2006. 

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00716-CG-M Document 6 Filed 06/13/06 Page 1 of 1
# I7,?tf£-il CourtofCriminalAppeals CCA Version 2.4.6.0 

# Docket Sheet Case Number: WR-17,395-11

10/1/2008 To 10/1/2008 

## Report Printed On: 10/1/2008 1:45:43 PM

Petitioner: 

## Style: SEWELL,LARRY GENE

vs: 

### Original Proceeding: No 

### Case Type: 11.07HC Defendant in Jail: No Bond: Offense: MURDER Offense Code: 19.02 

### Offense Type: Murder Remarks: Trial Court Information Trial Court ID: 

### County: Trial Court Name: Trial Court Case Number: 

### Trial CourtJudge: Trial CourtReporter: 

### CourtofAppeals Case: 02-85-00265-CR COA Opinion: 09-11-86 Contents: CR Remarks: 332200001 Tarrant Criminal District Court 1 C-1-007583-0248756-D 

### Toby Goldsmith

Parties Associated with Case 'i' Party Type APP Party Name 

### SEWELL, LARRY GENE Interested Entities Associatedwith' Case:,. Interested 

### Entity Type Bar Number Notice? Date On Date Off Remarks 

### Case Priority: Regular Punishment: LIFE Enhancement: Record Filed: 3/10/2006 Motion Filed:

Location: CCA Locations - BG5

Interested Entity Name 

### Toby Goldsmith LARRY GENE SEWELL 

### DistrictAttorney Tarrant County DistrictClerkTarrant County TCJUD No •03/10/2006 

### Trial CourtJudge APP Yes 03/10/2006 DAT Yes 03/10/2006 DCK Yes 03/10/2006 

## IProcess: HABEAS"CORPUS'REC -1107-HC Events Event Date Event Description 3/10/2006 WRIT RECEIVED WRIT *** Remarks: DispositionType Oral EnBanc SubmissionTvpe Submission Process No 

# w\

3/14/2006 WRIT SUBMITTED WRIT No *** Remarks: 5/24/2006 ACTION TAKEN WRIT DIS/SUBAPP No *** Remarks: 5/31/2006 

### STATUS WRIT DIS/SUBAPP No *** Remarks: 9/25/2008 COPY REQUEST WRIT No 

# Page 1

## Court ofCriminalAppeals CCA Version 2.4.6.0

Petitioner: 

## Style: SEWELL,LARRY GENE 

# Docket Sheet Case Number: WR-17,395-11

10/1/2008 To 10/1/2008 

## Report Printed On: 10/1/2008 1:45:43 PM

Record Filed: 3/10/2006 Motion Filed:

*** Remarks: Calendars <• ' /j-^t . «; '-».''

# .'>/:'&':-' v. 

### • '••~{ii{!Jl * 1,: *'X *. / >»"~f ' r/>^ **" 

## • •-$: ' '-* ; Calendar STORED Date Set 05/24/2006 Reason Set WRIT STORED En Banc OpinionComments



## Page 2
#### Charles E. Bresler v. Washington Ellis, Drain Commissioner, and the Board of Supervisors of Wayne County—Louis Bresler v. Same.

*Qertiora/ri to bi'ing up proceedings to lay out ditch.*

A writ of *certiorari*to review proceedings for laying out a ditch was sued out eight months after the work had been finished and when the only assessments in arrears were those for which the petitioner was liable. The work had continued more than a year and was to be paid for in three annual assessments. Held, that the fact that he was out of the county when he heard the ditches were finished was not in itself a sufficient excuse for his delay in suing out the writ, and] that *certiorari*was not the proper remedy to enforce whatever rights he might have.

*Certiorari*to review proceedings to carry out public improvements should not be granted after any considerable delay in suing out the writ, unless the court is satisfied that the delay is not due to the petitioner’s neglect.

Certiorari.

Submitted June 16.

Decided June 22.

*D. C. Holbrook*for petitioners.

*Moore & Moore*for respondent Ellis.

Graves, J.

This is a *certiorari*to review the proceedings for the laying out and construction of certain ditches in Wayne county. A preliminary question is raised that *336the writ was not seasonably applied for and ought therefore to be dismissed. The proceedings- were commenced in March, 1879, and on the 23d of June the contracts for ditching were given out. The expense was required to be raised in three instalments, one-third in 1879, one-third in 1880, and the residue in 1881. The plaintiff admits in the petition that the entire work was finished as early as July,. 1880. He neglected, however, to make application -for the writ until April, 1881, a period of more than eight months thereafter, and until as would seem there remained in arrear no other assessments except those charged against him.

T-he only reason intimated as an explanation for the delay is a statement in the petition that the plaintiff was absent, from the United States at the time he was first informed that the ditches were finished in July, 1880. There is nothing in this circumstance to excuse the continued failure for so-many months to take steps. There will be danger of great injustice in allowing persons to lie by in cases, of this class-until all the benefit to arise from the work is secured and nothing remains but the payment of their share of the expense, and then permit them to intervene by *oertiora/ri*and procure the proceedings to be overthrown, and before, permitting it the court should be satisfied that the delay has not been owing to any fault or neglect on the part of the applicant.

Whatever right the applicant may have, the present is not the proper remedy.

The writ of *cerúiora/ri*is quashed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Frederick W. Jacobs, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and
Chief Accounting Officer, certify that:



|1. |  | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Aphton
Corporation;
|-- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. |  | Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report; and
|-- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. |  | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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
quarterly report.
|-- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: February 25, 2004
    
    Signature:
    
    /s/ Frederick W. JacobsFrederick W. Jacobs
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
Treasurer and Chief Accounting Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
No. 87-1580.

#### Loeschnig *v.*Chrysler Credit Corp. et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.