alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 18, 2019

No. 04-18-00522-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF HUGH BOB SPILLER,

From the County Court, Menard County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-02059A

Honorable Joe Loving, Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellee’s Motion to Expedite Mandate is DENIED.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 18th day of July, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 96-50176

USDC No. W-95-CV-232

 

FRANK JANUARY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

- - - - - - - - - -

July 11, 1996

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Frank January (TDCJ #361639) has filed a motion to proceed

in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. January appeals the district

court's dismissal of his complaint without prejudice, pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to comply with

magistrate judge's order to submit an application to proceed in

forma pauperis properly verified by prison officials or to pay

the requisite filing fee.
No. 96-50176

-2-

January has not presented a nonfrivolous issue. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that his motion for leave to proceed on appeal IFP

is DENIED. See Jackson v. Dallas Police Dep't, 811 F.2d 260, 261

(5th Cir. 1986). Because his appeal is frivolous, the appeal is

DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
III 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 121 

Amending rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide for 

consideration of a minimum number of amendments. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 26, 2015 

Mr. MERKLEY (for himself and Mr. UDALL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Amending rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate 

to provide for consideration of a minimum number of 

amendments. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. GUARANTEED AMENDMENTS. 

3 Rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘6. (a) During the consideration of any bill, resolu6 tion, or other amendable matter, it shall be in order for 

7 the Senate to consider not less than 5 amendments offered 

8 by members of the majority and not less than 5 amend9 ments offered by members of the minority. If a motion 

10 to invoke cloture under the provisions of rule XXII is preVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:41 Mar 27, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\SR121.IS SR121

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 121 IS 

1 sented to the Senate, and fewer than the 5 amendments 

2 guaranteed to each of the minority and the majority under 

3 this paragraph have been considered, then, notwith4 standing the status of any pending amendments, it shall 

5 be in order for as many members of the majority as appro6 priate, and as many members of the minority as appro7 priate, to offer 1 amendment each, in alternating order, 

8 until in total 5 amendments offered by members of the 

9 majority and 5 amendments offered by members of the 

10 minority have been considered. 

11 ‘‘(b) Amendments offered under this paragraph may 

12 only pertain to matter encompassed by the title of the bill, 

13 resolution, or other matter, except that 1 amendment of14 fered by a member of the majority and 1 amendment of15 fered by a member of the minority may be exempted from 

16 this requirement. An amendment exempted from this re17 quirement shall only be agreed to upon an affirmative vote 

18 of three-fifths of Senators duly chosen and sworn. 

19 ‘‘(c) The majority leader and minority leader may, 

20 by mutual agreement, call up additional amendments 

21 under the provisions of this paragraph. Such additional 

22 amendments shall be offered in equal number by members 

23 of the majority and members of the minority, and may 

24 only pertain to subject matter encompassed by the title 

25 of the bill, resolution, or other matter. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 121 IS 

1 ‘‘(d) Consideration by the Senate of an amendment 

2 offered under the provisions of this paragraph shall be lim3 ited to not more than 2 hours, divided equally between 

4 the majority and the minority.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ORTIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-50744.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 3, 2007.*

Filed Dec. 28, 2007.

US Attorneys Office, USSD—Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Steven A. Feldman, Esq., Uniondale, NY, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Ortiz appeals from his jury-trial conviction and 120-month sentence for importation of marijuana, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and bail jumping, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 952 and 960, and 18 U.S.C. § 3146. Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Ortiz’s counsel has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided the appellant the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 80-81, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no grounds for relief on direct appeal.

Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-02-1997
<CASH>                                           20192
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    10453
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     253993
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                301279
<PP&E>                                          159656
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  617187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           279143
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           115
<OTHER-SE>                                    (312196)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    617187
<SALES>                                         564787
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                570227
<CGS>                                           392192
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   392192
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                219909
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                6983
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (48857)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (48857)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (48857)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.29)
        

</TABLE>
II 

Calendar No. 41 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 907 

[Report No. 114–18] 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent the extension 

of the tax collection period merely because the taxpayer is a member 

of the Armed Forces who is hospitalized as a result of combat zone 

injuries. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 14, 2015 

Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on Finance, reported the following original 

bill; which was read twice and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent 

the extension of the tax collection period merely because 

the taxpayer is a member of the Armed Forces who 

is hospitalized as a result of combat zone injuries. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Wounded Warrior Tax 

5 Equity Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 907 PCS

1 SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF EXTENSION OF TAX COLLECTION 

2 PERIOD FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 

3 FORCES WHO ARE HOSPITALIZED AS A RE4 SULT OF COMBAT ZONE INJURIES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7508(e) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

7 the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(3) COLLECTION PERIOD AFTER ASSESSMENT

9 NOT EXTENDED AS A RESULT OF HOSPITALIZA10 TION.—With respect to any period of continuous 

11 qualified hospitalization described in subsection (a) 

12 and the next 180 days thereafter, subsection (a) 

13 shall not apply in the application of section 6502.’’. 

14 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

15 this section shall apply to taxes assessed before, on, or 

16 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 41 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 907 

[Report No. 114–18] 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 

combat zone injuries. Armed Forces who is hospitalized as a result of merely because the taxpayer is a member of the prevent the extension of the tax collection period 

APRIL 14, 2015 

Read twice and placed on the calendar 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Margaret Griffith #1998464 742 F.M. 712 Marlln, 76661 05/29/2016 Dear Cierk, 

# 0^1-15-003-^%-Ct oH • 1'^ '/50'^s^ 'aiS-.

er*
as ro 3: f? 2-0 I* 

# m Irecently received your letter dated May 3, 2016 informing meOf-a-^form|^ * submission ON BRIEFS ONLY" set for June 8, 2016.1 did not receive this letter until 

### Tuesday May 24*^. When Ilooked more closely Irealized that the address on the clerk's response is incorrect. 

### Wouid you please correct my address to read: Margaret Griffith 1998464 742 FM 712 Marlin, TX76661 

### Thankyou very much. Respectfully, Margaret GriffithMargaretGriffith 1998464 742 FM 712 Martin, TX 76661

Vh'--' ^ ~J"
--

<-•> t.j'r. sAf'i tx PJODISTfSISCT 31 MAY2SD<1£.PM31

Fourth Court ofAppeals Cadena-Reeves Justice Center 300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200 San Antonio, TX7.8205

7B20S-3i3000
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1294 CA 11-02541**  PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, VALENTINO, WHALEN, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

CRAIG MELVIN, CLAIMANT-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. (CLAIM NO. 107704.)

GREENE & REID, PLLC, SYRACUSE (EUGENE W. LANE OF COUNSEL), FOR CLAIMANT-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (LAURA ETLINGER OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims (Nicholas V. Midey, Jr., J.), entered August 31, 2011. The judgment dismissed the claim after trial.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: Claimant, an inmate at a state correctional facility operated by defendant, State of New York (State), commenced this action alleging that the State was negligent and thus was liable for injuries he sustained when he was assaulted by a fellow inmate. Following a nonjury trial on the issue of liability, the Court of Claims determined that the State was not negligent and dismissed the claim. Claimant now appeals, and we affirm.
“The State’s duty to an incarcerated person encompasses protection from the foreseeable risk of harm at the hands of other prisoners. Because the State is not an insurer of an inmate’s safety, it will be liable in negligence for an assault by another inmate only upon a showing that it failed to exercise adequate care to prevent that which was reasonably foreseeable” ( Schittino v State of New York , 262 AD2d 824, 825, lv denied 94 NY2d 752; see Sanchez v State of New York , 99 NY2d 247, 252-253; Newton v State of New York , 283 AD2d 992, 993).
Here, the court found that it was not reasonably foreseeable that a hotpot would be used to assault claimant. The court also found that it was not reasonably foreseeable that the inmate assailant would assault claimant inasmuch as the inmate assailant had not been cited for any violent behavior for over three years and there was no history of violence between the two inmates ( cf. Blake v State of New York ,**-2- 1294 CA 11-02541** 
259 AD2d 878, 879; Littlejohn v State of New York , 218 AD2d 833, 834- 835). “Where, as here, the court’s decision is based upon a fair interpretation of the evidence, it will not be disturbed on appeal” ( Newton , 283 AD2d at 993). Thus, the claim was properly dismissed.

Entered: December 21, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 41950]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18725]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL

[Docket No. AS17-05]


Appraisal Subcommittee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

    Description: In accordance with Section 1104 (b) of Title XI of the 
Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, 
as amended, notice is hereby given that the Appraisal Subcommittee 
(ASC) will meet in open session for its regular meeting:
    Location: Federal Reserve Board--International Square location; 
1850 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006.
    Date: September 13, 2017.
    Time: 10:00 a.m.
    Status: Open.

Reports

Chairman
Executive Director
Delegated State Compliance Reviews
Financial Report

Action and Discussion Items

May 10, 2017 Open Session Minutes
Appraisal Foundation FY18 Grant Proposal
    [cir] Foundation Grant for AQB and ASB
    [cir] State Grant for Investigator Training
ASC FY18 Budget Proposal
Final Rulemaking--AMC National Registry Fee Implementation
Revised ASC Policy Statements for approval to repost in Federal 
Register for public comment
Agency Reform Plan for submission to the Office of Management and 
Budget

How To Attend and Observe an ASC Meeting

    If you plan to attend the ASC Meeting in person, we ask that you 
send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a575f5f4e53545d497a5b4959145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="68050d0d1c01060f1b28091b0b460f071e">[email protected]</span></a>. You may register until close of 
business four business days before the meeting date. You will be 
contacted by the Federal Reserve Law Enforcement Unit on security 
requirements. You will also be asked to provide a valid government-
issued ID before being admitted to the Meeting. The meeting space is 
intended to accommodate public attendees. However, if the space will 
not accommodate all requests, the ASC may refuse attendance on that 
reasonable basis. The use of any video or audio tape recording device, 
photographing device, or any other electronic or mechanical device 
designed for similar purposes is prohibited at ASC meetings.

    Dated: August 29, 2017.
James R. Park,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2017-18725 Filed 9-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6700-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1):*                         September 12, 2017.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 6, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *Request of the United States Postal Service to Add First-Class Package Service Contract 79 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2017-193, CP2017-294.                

Elizabeth A. Reed,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2017-19278 Filed 9-11-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13b – 14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT AND 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 Strayer Education, Inc. (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Mark C. Brown, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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/ Mark C. BrownMark C. BrownSenior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer


November 2, 2007

---
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD 

NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY 

PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. 

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

In The Supreme Court 

Bryan L. Mulligan, Respondent, 

v. 

State of South Carolina, Petitioner. 

Appellate Case No. 2013-002130 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI 

Appeal From Dorchester County 

Carmen T. Mullen, Circuit Court Judge 

Memorandum Opinion No. 2015-MO-024 

Submitted April 1, 2015 – Filed April 29, 2015 

CERTIORARI DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY 

GRANTED 

Attorney General Alan M. Wilson and Assistant Attorney 

General Megan E. Harrigan, both of Columbia, for 

Petitioner. 

Tara Dawn Shurling, of Law Office of Tara Dawn 

Shurling, P.A., of Columbia, for Respondent. 
PER CURIAM: We granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to 

review the grant of Respondent's application for post-conviction relief (PCR). We 

now dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. 

DISMISSED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED. 

TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., 

concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7824

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus JAMES EDWARD LOWE, III, a/k/a Jaimie, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-214, CA-01-44-1) Submitted: March 21, 2002 Decided: March 28, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Edward Lowe, III, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Hale Levin, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: James Edward Lowe seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Lowe , Nos. CR-98-214; CA-01- 44-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED