alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO

. 09

- 10

- 00 474

- C R



### ____________________

LEWIS BOOKMAN JR.

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On A ppeal from the 258th District Court

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No

. 20671

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury convicted Lewis Bookman Jr. of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

The trial court sentenced him to seventeen years in prison. Bookman’s appellate counsel

filed a brief that presents counsel’s professional evaluation of the record. Counsel

concludes there are no arguable points of error. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738,

87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App.

1978). This Court granted an extension of time for appellant to file a pro se response. We

received no response from him. We have reviewed the appellate record and agree with

counsel’s conclusion. It is unnecessary to order appointme n t of new counsel to re

- brief2 the appeal. Compare Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). The

trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

________________________________ DAVID GAULTNEY

Justice

Submitted on December 27, 2012

Opinion Delivered January 23, 2013

D o Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2099 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for District of Columbia, 

Federal Payment to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for fiscal 

year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for District of Columbia, Federal Payment to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FEDERAL PAYMENT 

5 TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING 

6 COUNCIL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for District of Columbia, Federal Payment to the 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2099 IH

1 Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for fiscal year 2024 

2 may not exceed $2,150,000. 

Æ 


DMWilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 77001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29948]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[RP14-638-000, CP14-125-000, CP14-126-000, et al.]


Notice Establishing Comment Due Dates on Settlement

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atmos Energy Corporation v.        Docket No. RP14-638-000
 American Midstream (Midla) LLC.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Midstream (Midla) LLC...  Docket Nos. CP14-125-000, CP14-126-
                                    000, RP14-689-000, RP14-689-001,
                                    RP14-1049-000, RP14-1049-001, RP14-
                                    1049-002, (not consolidated)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 11, 2014, American Midstream (Midla) LLC and the other 
Supporting Parties \1\ filed a Stipulation and Agreement (Settlement) 
in the above referenced proceedings. Pursuant to Rule 602(f) of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice,\2\ notice is hereby given that initial 
comments on the Settlement are due no later than December 31, 2014 and 
reply comments are due no later than January 12, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In addition to Midla, the Supporting Parties are Atmos 
Energy Corporation; BASF Corporation; Enbridge Marketing (US) L.P.; 
Entergy Services, Inc., Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, L.L.C., 
Entergy Louisiana, LLC and Entergy Arkansas, Inc.; EVP Properties, 
L.P.; Louisiana Public Service Commission; Louisiana Municipal Gas 
Authority; Mississippi Public Service Commission; and Tunica 
Pipeline, LLC.
    \2\ 18 CFR 385.602(f) (2014).

    Dated: December 16, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29948 Filed 12-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
H. R. 1722 

One Hundred Eighteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE FIRST SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-three 

An Act 

To amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Grand Ronde Reservation Act 

Amendment of 2023’’. 

SEC. 2. GRAND RONDE RESERVATION ACT AMENDMENT. 

Section 1(d) of Public Law 100–425 (commonly known as the 

‘‘Grand Ronde Reservation Act’’; 102 Stat. 1594; 108 Stat. 4566) 

is amended— 

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘lands within the State 

of Oregon’’ and inserting ‘‘the 84 acres known as the Thompson 

Strip’’; 

(2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and 

(3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following: 

‘‘(2) GAMING PROHIBITION.—Any real property obtained by 

the Tribes as part of a land claim settlement approved by 

the United States, including any real property purchased with 

funds granted as part of any land claim settlement, shall not 

be eligible, or used, for any class II gaming or class III gaming 

under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et 

seq.) (as those terms are defined in section 4 of that Act 

(25 U.S.C. 2703)).’’. 

SEC. 3. TREATY RIGHTS OF FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES. 

Nothing in this Act, or an amendment made by this Act, shall 

be construed to enlarge, confirm, adjudicate, affect, or modify any 

treaty right of an Indian Tribe (as defined in section 4 of the 

Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 

5304)). 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 17, 2023

No. 04-22-00020-CV

WHATABURGER RESTAURANTS LLC and Crystal Krueger,

Appellants

v.

Sadok FERCHICHI and Martina Coronado,

Appellees

From the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CI15548

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

 Appellees’ motion for extension of time to file their motion for rehearing and motion for 

en banc reconsideration is GRANTED. Appellees’ deadline for filing their motion for rehearing 

and motion for en banc reconsideration is extended to January 20, 2023.

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

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

court on this 17th day of January, 2023.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PAULA KAY HEDGEPETH, et al., )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0067-C

MOBILE COUNTY PROBATE 

JUDGE DON DAVIS, individually 

and in his official capacity, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the request for immediate relief contained 

in Plaintiffs’ complaint. (Doc. 1). It is not clear whether Plaintiffs seek a temporary 

restraining order (TRO) or a preliminary injunction. The court may issue a TRO 

without notice to the adverse party only if:

(a) Specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show 

that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will re-sult to 

the movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition; and

(B) the movant’ attorney certifies in writing any efforts made to give 

notice and the reasons why it should not be required.

FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b). Plaintiffs have not provided any affidavit evidence, did not file 

a verified complaint, and have not certified their efforts made to give notice and the 

Case 1:15-cv-00067-CG-C Document 7 Filed 02/10/15 Page 1 of 2
2

reasons why it should not be required. Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiffs seek a 

TRO, the motion is DENIED.

A preliminary injunction can be obtained only after the adverse parties have 

received notice. FED. R. CIV. P. 65(a)(1). There are numerous defendants named in 

this action, but at this time, only counsel on behalf of Attorney General Luther 

Strange have appeared in this matter. There is no proof of service on any other 

party. The court will not consider a preliminary injunction in this matter until all 

of the defendants have been notified. However, because Plaintiffs’ claims in this 

case are almost identical to another case currently set for a preliminary injunction 

hearing in this court and the result of that hearing may impact Plaintiffs in this 

case, the court will allow counsel for Plaintiffs to participate in that hearing. A 

preliminary injunction hearing is set in Case No. 14-0424-CG-C on February 12, 

2015, at 1:00 p.m., in Courtroom 2B, United States Courthouse, Mobile, Alabama.

DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of February, 2015. 

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00067-CG-C Document 7 Filed 02/10/15 Page 2 of 2
#### In the Matter of Linda Smith-Gilsey, Appellant, v Richard D. Grisanti, Respondent. In the Matter of Richard D. Grisanti, Respondent, v Linda Smith-Gilsey, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[974 NYS2d 870]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wyoming County (Michael F. Griffith, J.), entered February 2, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, among other things, denied the petition of petitioner-respondent for a modification of custody.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner-respondent mother appeals from two orders that, inter alia, denied her petition for a modification of custody (appeal No. 1) and changed her visitation schedule (appeal No. 2). We affirm the order in each appeal. A parent seeking to modify an existing custody order must demonstrate “a change in circumstances that reflects a genuine need for the modification so as to ensure the best interests of the child” *(Matter of Taylor v Fry,*63 AD3d 1217, 1218 [2009]; *see Matter of Sumner v Lyman,*70 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2010], *lv denied*14 *1425NY3d 709 [2010]). Although we agree with the mother that she met her burden of proving a change in circumstances because the parties’ relationship had deteriorated and the child had missed numerous visitations with her, we conclude on the record before us “ ‘that a change in custody would not be in the best interests of the [child]’ ” *(Matter of Dingeldey v Dingeldey,*93 AD3d 1325, 1326 [2012]). Furthermore, the court properly exercised its discretion in crafting a visitation schedule that was in the child’s best interests *(see Matter of Fox v Fox,*93 AD3d 1224, 1225 [2012]).

Contrary to the mother’s contention, by requiring respondent-petitioner father to post an undertaking in a specified amount, the court properly imposed a meaningful sanction based on the father’s failure to comply with orders concerning her visitation rights, to ensure that visitation occurred *(see generally Matter of Mason-Crimi v Crimi,*94 AD3d 1572, 1573-1574 [2012]; *Schoonheim v Schoonheim,*92 AD2d 474, 474-475 [1983]). Finally, we reject the mother’s contention that the court lacked jurisdiction over the instant matters, inasmuch as the father resides in Wyoming County *(see*Family Ct Act § 171). Present— Smith, J.E, Centra, Garni and Whalen, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Annual Report of Global Diversified Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending April 30, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Adam
Debard,  Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify to the best of my
knowledge,  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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Adam Debard
----------------------
Adam Debard
Principal Accounting Officer
August 17, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2055 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2055

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Salaries and Expenses 
                         for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Department of 
 Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Salaries and Expenses 
                         for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DEPARTMENT OF 
              TREASURY, FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK, SALARIES 
              AND EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Department of Treasury, 
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal 
year 2024 may not exceed $117,800,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of: Jay A. DICOSTANZO, Debtor, Debbera DiCostanzo, Appellant, v. Patricia J. Zimmerman; et al., Appellees.

No. 08-56593.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 6, 2010.

Filed Oct. 13, 2010.

*308Luis E. Lopez, Esquire, Lopez & Morris, Riverside, CA, for Debtor.

Jeffrey B. Smith, Curd, Galindo & Smith, Long Beach, CA, for Appellant.

Arturo Martus Cisneros, Esquire, Malcolm & Cisneros, Irvine, CA, N. Ramsey Barcik, Mark A. Nialis, Esquire, Counsel, Wildish & Nialis, Orange, CA, Stephen Robert Wade, Esquire, Law Offices of Stephen R. Wade, Upland, CA, for Appellees.

Before: HALL, FISHER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

After two hearings, the bankruptcy court entered an order granting trustee P.J. Zimmerman’s motion to approve a compromise settling the bankruptcy estate’s legal claim to a residence. Debbera DiCostanzo appeals the district court’s af-firmance of the order of the bankruptcy court. We review a bankruptcy court’s order approving a motion to compromise for an abuse of discretion, *In re A & C Properties,*784 F.2d 1377, 1380 (9th Cir.1986), and we affirm.

Contrary to DiCostanzo’s argument, the bankruptcy court applied the correct legal standard to the trustee’s motion to approve a compromise under Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9019(a). Although the bankruptcy court’s statements were general and conclusory, the record reveals the court applied *A & C Properties’s*four-factor test to determine the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the proposed compromise. Under this test, the bankruptcy court’s approval of the compromise was not an abuse of discretion.

We also hold the bankruptcy court did not err by further treating the trustee’s motion to approve the compromise as a motion to approve the sale of an asset under 11 U.S.C. § 363. *See In re Mickey Thompson Entm’t Group, Inc.,*292 B.R. 415, 421-22 (9th Cir.2003). Additionally, the bankruptcy court complied with 11 U.S.C. § 363(i) by estimating the value of *309the compromise to the bankruptcy estate and by offering DiCostanzo the chance to purchase the bankruptcy estate’s claim to the residence at this price. Nevertheless, DiCostanzo argues the court erred by refusing to offer her an order 1) allowing her to use the residence as collateral for a loan to obtain the necessary funds to purchase the trustee’s legal claim; and 2) quieting title to the residence in her favor. We reject this argument because the bankruptcy court could not offer DiCostanzo the order she requested; the trustee was selling a legal claim to the residence and not the residence itself.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Third Department,

September, 2013

(September 5, 2013)

#### In the Matter of Bradley J. Weil, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[971 NYS2d 66]—

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1986. He resides in New Jersey, where he was admitted to practice in 1987.

By order dated April 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of New Jersey censured respondent for failing to safeguard funds, practicing law while ineligible and conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation *(Matter of Weil,*213 NJ 499, 64 A3d 557 [2013]). Petitioner now moves for an order imposing discipline pursuant to this Court’s rules *(see*22 NYCRR 806.19).

Respondent has not replied to the motion or otherwise raised any available defenses *(see*22 NYCRR 806.19 [d]), and we therefore grant petitioner’s motion. Further, the record indicates that respondent was previously ineligible to practice law in New Jersey because he did not pay annual assessments to the New Jersey Lawyer’s Fund for Client Protection. He has similarly been delinquent with respect to his five most recent biennial attorney registration payments in New York.

Under all of the circumstances presented, and especially noting respondent’s apparent disregard for his fate as an attorney *1020in this state as evinced by his failure to appear in this matter and his delinquent registration status, we conclude that he should be suspended for six months *(see generally Matter of Dahl,*108 AD3d 1009 [2013]; *Matter of Marshall,*58 AD3d 1066 [2009] ).

Peters, EJ., Stein, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of six months, effective immediately, and until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that, for the period of the suspension, respondent is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; and respondent is hereby forbidden to appear as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application, or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 806.9).
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 240 (Monday, December 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 74155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29312]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8970]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Piero di Cosimo: The Poetry of Painting in 
Renaissance Florence''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the 
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, 
et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 
of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 
2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 
2003), I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the 
exhibition ``Piero di Cosimo: The Poetry of Painting in Renaissance 
Florence,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I 
also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at 
the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, from on or about February 
1, 2015, until on or about May 3, 2015, and at possible additional 
exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national 
interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be 
published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202-632-6469). The mailing address is U.S. Department of 
State, SA-5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: December 4, 2014.
Kelly Keiderling,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2014-29312 Filed 12-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P