alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
In re : PETER

EM ANUEL KVASSAY, De btor,

------------------------------ PETER EM ANUEL KVASSAY, Appe lla nt,
v. R OB ER T V. KVASSAY, individua lly and a s Truste e of the Kva s sa

y Fa m ily Trust date d Fe brua

ry 26, 1993, Appe lle e . No. 19-60012 B AP No. 18-1148
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Ninth C irc uit B ankruptc y

Appe lla te Pane l Tay lor, Fa

ris, a nd Kurtz , B ankruptc y

Judge s, Pre siding Subm itte d April 15, 2020 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED
MAY4 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd FER NANDEZ a

nd W . FLETC HER , C irc uit Judge s . Pe te r Em a

nue l Kva ssa

y a ppe a ls the ba

nkruptc y a

ppe lla te pa ne l’ s (“ B A P” ) de c ision a ffirm ing the ba

nkruptc y c ourt’ s gra

nt of sum m ary judgm e nt a ga inst him in his a dve rsary proc e e ding a ga inst R obe rt V. Kva ssa y . W e a ffirm

for the re a sons
se t forth in theB AP’ s e x c e lle n t m e m orandum disposition, 1 whic h we a dopt. AFFIRM E D
.

1 K v assay v . K v a ssay (In re K v assay ) , No. C C -18-1148-TaFKu, 2019 W L 545673 (B .A.P. 9th C ir. Fe b
. 11, 2019). 2
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 15, 2017

No. 04-17-00091-CV

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,

Appellant

v.

Hector R. RAMIREZ,

Appellee

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CVT002640-D4

Honorable Oscar J. Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s reply brief is due on December 12, 2017. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(c). 

Before the due date, Appellant filed an unopposed first motion for extension of time to file the 

reply brief until January 11, 2018, for an extension of thirty days. 

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s reply brief is due on January 11, 2018. 

See id. R. 38.6(d). 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 15th day of December, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 708 Reported in House (RH)]

<DOC>

                                                  House Calendar No. 54
116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 708

                          [Report No. 116-297]

 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 
    3055) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and 
   Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
              September 30, 2020, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 2019

   Mr. McGovern, 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 Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 
    3055) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and 
   Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
              September 30, 2020, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3055) making 
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, 
and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2020, and 
for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider 
in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a motion 
offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or her designee 
that the House concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment 
inserting the text of Rules Committee Print 116-38 in lieu of the 
matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate. The Senate amendment and 
the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable 
for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The previous 
question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption 
without intervening motion.
                                                  House Calendar No. 54

116th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 708

                          [Report No. 116-297]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 
    3055) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and 
   Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
              September 30, 2020, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 18, 2019

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00465-CV

Canyon Lake Area, Comal County, Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., Appellant

v.

Patrick L. Lacombe, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OF COMAL COUNTY

NO. 95CV-307, HONORABLE BRENDA CHAPMAN, JUDGE PRESIDING 

On December 4, 2001, appellant filed an agreed motion to dismiss this cause. The

appellant has informed this Court that the parties have settled their dispute. The parties have agreed

to dismiss the suit, with prejudice. We will grant appellant’s motion; the appeal is dismissed with

prejudice.

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: December 20, 2001

Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report of All American Pet Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Barry Schwartz, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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








/S/ Barry SchwartzBarry SchwartzChief Executive OfficerAugust 18, 2010
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tianyin Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, Guoqing Jiang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)T he information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.








Date:  November 12, 2010








/s/   Guoqing JiangGuoqing JiangChief Executive Officer & Chairman
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20144

Summary Calendar

ROBERT JAMES FOX,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-1880

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert James Fox appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 civil rights complaint, liberally construed, as barred by the “three 

strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). He asserts that he has no knowledge 

of any strikes.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 24, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-20144 Document: 00513128260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/24/2015
No. 14-20144

2

In 2001, the Northern District of Texas concluded that Fox had a pattern 

of filing frivolous lawsuits and sanctioned Fox by prohibiting him from filing 

any future litigation in the Northern District of Texas without first obtaining 

permission. In dismissing the instant case, the district court relied on that

earlier district court’s order to determine that the instant complaint was 

barred under § 1915(g). However, this 2001 order is not a strike under § 

1915(g), and there is no record of any other cases where Fox, “while 

incarcerated or detained in any facility,” brought “an action or appeal in a court 

of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds that it [was] frivolous, 

malicious, or fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” § 

1915(g).

Therefore, the district court erred in determining that Fox had three 

strikes at the time he filed the instant lawsuit and in concluding that Fox was 

barred under § 1915(g) from proceeding IFP. Accordingly, the district court’s 

judgment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion.

 Case: 14-20144 Document: 00513128260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/24/2015
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 26, 2016

s1017 

# Order

Clerk October 26, 2016

152152 & (11)(12)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 152152

COA: 325621

Wayne CC: 89

- 014558

- FC

EVERETT DYSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion to add issues is GRANTED. The application for

leave to appeal the June 22 , 2015 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is

DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlemen t

to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion to remand is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 23.1CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Form S-8, Nos. 33-17196,33-44822, 33-44877, 33-44876, 33-22459, 33-38491,33-54075, 33-54079, 33-54077, 333-47833,333-28273, 333-38752, 333-62568, 333-62572, and 333-117017) pertaining to various stock option,employee savings, deferred compensation and restricted stock plans and in Registration Statements(Form S-3, Nos. 33-36001, 333-60175, 333-121743, and 333-133092) pertaining to a universal shelfregistration statement and registration of preferred stock and common stock warrants of Wellman,Inc. of our reports dated March 15, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financial statements andfinancial statement schedule of Wellman, Inc., Wellman, Inc. management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting of Wellman, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) ofWellman, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006./s/ Ernst & Young LLP
| | EXHIBIT 23(a)
| | -------------







|CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
|-------------------------------





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements (Form S-8, Nos. 33-17196, 33-44822, 33-44877, 33-44876, 33-22459, 33-38491, 33-54075, 33-54079, 33-54077, 333-47833, 333-28273, 333-38752, 333-62568, 333-62572, and Form S-3, Nos. 33-36001 and 333-60175) pertaining to various stock option, employee savings, deferred compensation and restricted stock plans and a universal shelf registration statement of Wellman, Inc. of our report dated February 12, 2002, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedules included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Wellman, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2001.







|Ernst & Young LLP
|-----------------





Charlotte, North Carolina

March 27, 2002
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEFFREY D. CHURCH,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

CITY OF RENO; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-16062

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00601-RCJ-VPC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 8, 2015

San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and FRIEDMAN,** District

Judge. 

The district court correctly dismissed Jeffrey Church’s First Amended

Complaint, which alleged a hostile work environment claim under the Uniformed

FILED

JUL 24 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The Honorable Paul L. Friedman, District Judge for the U.S. District

Court for the District of Columbia, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 3

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), 38

U.S.C. § 4311(a). Church’s action is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.

In 2003, Church filed suit against the City of Reno, alleging that the City

tolerated a hostile work environment that resulted in Church’s constructive

discharge under Nevada law. The district court granted summary judgment in

favor of the City, and we affirmed. Church v. Berry, 275 F. App’x 678 (9th Cir.

2008) (unpublished). At the time, no precedent precluded Church from asserting a

hostile work environment claim under USERRA. In fact, in an earlier appeal

involving Church, we expressly declined to resolve whether such a claim could be

asserted under USERRA. Church v. City of Reno, 168 F.3d 498, 1999 WL 65205,

at *1 (9th Cir. 1999) (unpublished). And other circuits had recognized the

possibility that hostile work environment claims could be brought under USERRA. 

See Miller v. City of Indianapolis, 281 F.3d 648, 652-53 (7th Cir. 2002); Yates v.

Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 145 F.3d 1480, 1484 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 

Church’s USERRA claim in this action is barred by the doctrine of claim

preclusion because: (1) it arises out of the “same transactional nucleus of facts” as

his 2003 action; (2) it concerns the infringement of the same right asserted in his

2003 action; (3) it relies upon the same evidence presented in his 2003 action; and

(4) the City’s rights established in the 2003 action would be “destroyed or impaired
Page 3 of 3

by the prosecution of [this action].” Littlejohn v. United States, 321 F.3d 915, 920

(9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Claim preclusion forecloses a

plaintiff from pursuing grounds for recovery that “could have been asserted in a

previous action between the same parties on the same cause of action, even if such

contentions were not raised.” Id. Because Church failed to allege a hostile work

environment claim under USERRA in his 2003 action, he is precluded from

asserting the claim now. 

AFFIRMED.
# table51_q5.6_size
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-31087 Conference Calendar

EDRICK JENKINS, Petitioner-Appellant,

versus BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-1062

- - - - - - - - - - February 10, 1998 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Edrick Jenkins, Texas prisoner # 99089, appeals the district court's dismissal of his habeas application. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if
necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Rule 4(a)(1), F ED . R. A PP . P., requires that the notice of appeal in a civil action be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or order from which appeal is taken. However, “[i]f an inmate confined in an institution files a notice of appeal inNo. 97-31087 - 2 - either a civil case or a criminal case, the notice of appeal is timely filed if it is deposited in the institution’s internal mail system on or before the last day of filing.” F ED . R. A PP . P. 4(c). The district court entered final judgment on July 7, 1997. Therefore, the final day for filing a timely notice of appeal was Wednesday, August 6, 1997. Jenkins's application for a certificate of appealability (COA) is construed as a notice of appeal under Stevens v. Heard , 674 F.2d 320, 323 (5th Cir. 1982). The COA application is dated August 13, 1997, and it was not filed into the court record until August 20, 1997. The time limitation for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, and the lack of a timely notice of appeal mandates dismissal of the appeal. Robbins v. Maggio , 750 F.2d 405, 408 (5th Cir. 1985). As Jenkins did not file a timely notice of appeal, the appeal is DISMISSED.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 17, 2015

No. 04-15-00422-CR

Carl RANDLE, JR.,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR4661A

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel, Michael Lee Young, Chief Public Defender, has 

filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. In his motion, Mr. Young states he was appointed on July 

8, 2015, to represent appellant on appeal. The appeal was assigned to attorney Michael D. 

Robbins, an attorney with the Public Defender’s Office. Mr. Robbins currently represents 

appellant’s co-defendant, Carl C. Ross, on appeal. Accordingly, Mr. Robbins has a conflict and 

cannot continue to represent appellant in this appeal. 

Based on the foregoing, we GRANT the motion to withdraw. Because appellant no 

longer has appellate counsel, we ORDER the appeal ABATED and REMAND the matter to the 

trial court. See Duncan v. State, 653 S.W.2d 38, 40 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (holding that 

appellate courts may abate appeals so that trial court can assure appellant has effective assistance 

of counsel). We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing and enter findings of fact and 

conclusions of law on or before August 6, 2015 with respect to the following:

(1) Whether appellant is still indigent; and 

(2) If appellant is still indigent, who shall be appointed as appellant’s new 

appellate counsel. 

We further ORDER the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing 

the trial court’s findings of facts and conclusions of law on or before August 17, 2015. We also 

ORDER the court reporter to file a supplemental reporter’s record of the hearing, along with 

copies of any documentary evidence admitted, no later than twenty days after the date of the 

hearing. After the supplemental records are filed, the appeal will be reinstated on the docket of 

this court.
We order the clerk of this court to service copies of this order on the trial court, the 

district clerk, the court reporter, all counsel, and appellant. 

All appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further orders from this court.

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

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

court on this 17th day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

                                                                 Exhibit 27
                                                                 ----------


                       CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION
                         FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                    ($ In Millions Except Per Share)


THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-K AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K.


<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000,000
       

<S>                                  <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          12-MOS
<CASH>                                     17
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                             629
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                               139
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        1,092
<PP&E>                                  6,590
<DEPRECIATION>                              0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          8,353
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,115
<BONDS>                                 1,876
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                              3,035
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            8,353
<SALES>                                     0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        3,684
<CGS>                                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           3,086
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        174
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           516
<INCOME-TAX>                              181
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       335
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                              335
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               0
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0
<PAGE>


</TABLE>