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

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-19-00281-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 48th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 048-276121-14

Before Wallach, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Gabriel, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

P. CHYBA, Appellant

V.

US BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR BEAR STEARNS 

ASSET BACKED SECURITIES I TRUST 2005-AC6 ASSET-BACKED 

CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-AC6, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On July 31, 2019, and August 15, 2019, we notified appellant, in accordance 

with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c), that we would dismiss this appeal unless 

appellant paid the $205 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 44.3. Appellant has not 

done so. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

Because appellant has not complied with a procedural requirement and the 

Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 28, 2015,1 we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: September 19, 2019

 1

See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil Cases 

in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation, 

Misc. Docket No. 15-9158 (Aug. 28, 2015) (listing courts of appeals’ fees).
#### Jerry Chris JOHNSON *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-1306

964 S.W.2d 199

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered March 5, 1998

*183
      *James Wyatt,*for appellant.

No response.

Per Curiam.

Appellant Jerry Chris Johnson has filed an appeal from an order of the trial court denying his Rule 37 petition. His brief was filed on December 29, 1997, and the State, as appellee, filed its brief on January 26, 1998. Johnson, prior to filing his reply brief, has filed this motion to supplement the record and for an extension of time to file his reply brief.

According to his motion, Johnson requests that this court allow him to supplement the record on this appeal “with the abstract of his previous appeal.” We construe his request to be for permission to supplement the record in the instant case with the record of the underlying trial.

The motion is moot in that it is not necessary for an appellant in a postconviction appeal to request that the record be supplemented with the trial transcript. The transcript of a trial which has been lodged in the appellate court on direct appeal of the judgment is a public record. As such, it need not be incorporated into the record in a postconviction appeal which stems from the same judgment of conviction. *Drymon v. State,*327 Ark. 375, 938 S.W.2d 825 (1997). As it will be necessary for Johnson’s counsel to abstract the record of the previous appeal, however, rebriefing should occur so that Johnson can file his original brief with an abstract which includes an abstract of the trial record.

Motion moot.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ramon Gerardo ESPINOZA-MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-50520

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 25, 2008.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., U.S. Attorney’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ramon Gerardo Espinoza-Martinez pleaded guilty to possession with the intent to distribute cocaine. The district court sentenced Espinoza-Martinez at the low end of the properly calculated guidelines range to 70 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Espinoza-Martinez now appeals his sentence.

Espinoza-Martinez argues that his sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He argues that sentence is not necessary to protect the public or to prevent him from committing future crimes because this was his first offense and he is genuinely repentant.

The district court committed no significant procedural error as it properly calculated the applicable guidelines range, allowed both parties to present arguments as to what they believed the appropriate sentence should be, and considered all of the § 3553(a) factors. Where, as here, the district court imposes a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range, the sentence is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. *See United States v. Alonzo,*435 F.3d 551, 553-54 (5th Cir.2006); *see also Rita v. United States,*- U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 2462, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007). Espinoza-Martinez has failed to demonstrate that his sentence is unreasonable. *See Gall v. United States,*— U.S.-, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              81
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    8,866
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (133)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,572
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          16,240
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (3,356)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,714
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                1
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,568
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,714
<SALES>                                         34,228
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                34,228
<CGS>                                           22,894
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,174
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 143
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,017
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,551
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,466
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,466
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .39


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16A0466. AGNES SCOTT COLLEGE, INC. v. AMANDA HARTLEY.

Appellee Amanda Hartley has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal based on

Appellant’s failure to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures. That motion is

hereby GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

12/31/2015

December 31, 2015
#### YAN LIN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-1728.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 10, 2008.

Decided: Jan. 25, 2008.

Henry Zhang, Zhang & Associates, New York, New York, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Mark C. Walters, Assistant Director, Jeffrey R. Meyer, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Yan Lin, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her requests for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture.* Lin challenges the Board’s finding that her testimony was not credible and that she otherwise failed to meet her burden of proof to qualify for asylum. We will uphold a negative credibility determination if it is supported by substantial evidence, *see Tewabe v. Gonzales,*446 F.3d 533, 538 (4th Cir.2006), and reverse the Board’s decision only if the evidence “was so compelling that no reasonable fact finder could fail to find the requisite fear of persecution.” *Rusu v. INS,*296 F.3d 316, 325 n. 14 (4th Cir.2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s decision and find that substantial evidence supports the adverse credibility finding and the ruling that Lin failed to establish past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution as necessary to establish eligibility for asylum. *See*8 U.S.C.A. § 1158(b)(l)(B)(I), (ii) (West 2005) (providing that the burden of proof is on the alien to establish eligibility for asylum); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(a) (2007) (same). Similarly, because Lin does not qualify for asylum, she is not entitled to withholding of removal. *See Dankam v. Gonzales,*495 F.3d 113, 124 (4th Cir.2007).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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.

*PETITION DENIED.*

*

 Lin does not challenge on appeal the denial of protection under the Convention Against Torture. We therefore find that she has waived appellate review of this claim. *See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro,*178 F.3d 231, 241 n. 6 (4th Cir.1999).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-10104

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARMANDO PAREDES-MUNOZ, also known as Ramon Paredes, also known as

Armando Padres,

Defendant-Appellant

c/w No. 13-10108

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARMANDO PAREDES-MUNOZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-125-1

USDC No. 4:12-CR-143-1

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 25, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 13-10104 Document: 00512419684 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2013
No. 13-10104

c/w No. 13-10108

Before JOLLY, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Armando

Paredes-Munoz has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v.

Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Paredes-Munoz has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that these consolidated

appeals present no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly,

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from

further responsibilities herein, and the APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2.

* 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.

2

 Case: 13-10104 Document: 00512419684 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2013
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. David SKAINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-10937

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 30, 2008.

Richard C. Baker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Helen Miller Liggett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Lubbock, Tx, for Defendanb-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, David Skains raises arguments that are foreclosed by *United States v. Hinson,*429 F.3d 114, 119 (5th Cir.2005), which held that a defendant is not entitled to a jury trial to determine whether the terms of supervised release have been violated. *681The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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 5rn Cir. R. 47.5.4.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7209

CHRISTOPHER DEMONT OWENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WARDEN MCCALL; CLAYTOR, Assistant Warden; MAUNCY, Assistant Warden; MAJOR BUSH; LIEUTENANT MONROE; SERGEANT COTTER; LIEUTENANT HAROFF; INVESTIGATOR SHUGART, Investigator; PEARSON, STG Investigator; OFFICER MCBEE; OFFICER DILLARD; JEAN RUTLEDGE; AMY ENLOC, Nurse; ALEWINE, Nurse; COMMISSIONER OZMINT, Director; BOB OLSON, Food Supervisor,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (8:09-cv-00278-GRA-BHH)

Submitted: September 29, 2009 Decided: October 8, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Demont Owens, Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE, O’ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Christopher Demont Owens appeals the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying his motion for a preliminary injunction. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm for the reasons state d by the district court. See

Owens v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corr. , No. 8:09-cv-00278-GRABHH (D.S.C. June 16, 2009). 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>




                                   EXHIBIT 11
                        COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Three Months Ended March 31,
                                                          2002             2001
                                                          ----             ----
                                                   (in thousand, except per share data)
BASIC

<S>                                                <C>                 <C>
Net Income                                                $425              $399
/ Weighted Average Shares                                2,615             2,608
                                                        ------            ------

Basic Earnings Per Share                                 $0.16             $0.15
                                                        ======            ======


DILUTED

Net Income                                                $425              $399
/ Weighted Average Shares                                2,633             2,609
                                                        ------            ------

Diluted Earnings Per Share                               $0.16             $0.15
                                                        ======            ======
</TABLE>
Motion Granted; Order filed December 21, 2018

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00930

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF C .A.G. III, A CHILD , Appellant

On Appeal from the 314th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2016

- 01043J



### ORDER
This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of the parent

- child relationship is at issue. Appellant’s brief was due originally due November 21, 2018

. We granted an extension of time through December 18, 2018 noting that no further extensions would be entertained absent exceptional circumstances. On December 18, 2018 counsel filed a further request for extension of time. The motion is granted. Therefore we order appellant’s appointed c ounsel, Donald Crane, to file appellant’s brief no later than January 4, 2019

. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt ofcourt. In addition, the court may require appointment of n ew counsel due to the failure to timely file appellant’s brief.

PER CURIAM
----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**CHIEF      FINANCIAL OFFICER**

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

| /s/                L. Paul Latham                                      |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| L.                Paul Latham                                          |
| President                and Chief Executive Officer                   |
| of                Southwest Royalties, Inc., the                       |
| Managing                General Partner of                             |
| Southwest                Royalties Institutional Income Fund X-C, L.P. |
|                                                                   |
| November                13, 2007                                       |
|                                                                   |
|                                                                   |
| /s/                Mel G. Riggs                                        |
| Mel                G. Riggs                                            |
| Vice                President and Chief Financial Officer of           |
| Southwest                Royalties, Inc., the                          |
| Managing                General Partner of                             |
| Southwest                Royalties Institutional Income Fund X-C, L.P. |
|                                                                   |
| November                13, 2007                                       |
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 15 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 15

Electing Gary B. Myrick, of Virginia, as Secretary for the Minority of 
                              the Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 6, 2015

Mr. Durbin (for Mr. Reid) submitted the following resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Electing Gary B. Myrick, of Virginia, as Secretary for the Minority of 
                              the Senate.

    Resolved, That Gary B. Myrick of Virginia be, and he is hereby, 
elected Secretary for the Minority of the Senate.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

August 10, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50904

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EDVIN AROLDO JUAREZ-CAMPOS,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:04-CR-47-1-AML

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

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Edvin Aroldo Juarez-Campos appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry into

the United States foll owing deportation. Juarez-Campos was

sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 46 months to be followed by

three years of supervised release.

Juarez-Campos argues for the firs t time on appeal that, in

light of United States v. Booker

, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), the

district court plainly erre d in sentencing him under a mandatory2

guidelines system based upon facts that were not admitted by him or

found by a jury. He contends that mitigating circumstances brought

to the district court’s attention at sentencing would have led to

a lesser sentence if the district court had sentenced him under an

advisory guideline scheme.

Juarez-Campos’s claim that the district court plainly erred by

enhancing his sentence based upon facts not determined by a jury

and which he did not admit is unavailing because he failed to show

that “the sentencing judge--sentencing under an advisory scheme

rather then a mand atory one--would have reached a significantly

different result.” S ee United States v. Mares

, 402 F.3d 511, 520-

522 (5th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005)

(No. 04-9517); see also United States v. Bringier

, 405 F.3d 310,

317 (5th Cir. 2005). His argument that the district court’s

application of the guidelines as mandatory w as error also fails

because he did not show that the district court would have imposed

a different sentence had the guidelines been advisory only. S ee

United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo

, 407 F.3d 728, 733-34 (5th Cir.

2005).

Juarez-Campos concedes that the issue wheth er his sentence

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) was rendered unconstitutional by

Apprendi v. New Jersey

, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and subsequent Supreme

Court precedent is foreclosed b y A lmendarez-Torres v. United

States

, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), and he raises it solely to

preserve it for further review by the Supreme Court. A pprendi did3

not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. S ee Apprendi

, 530 U.S. at 489-90;

United States v. Dabeit

, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). We

therefore must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the

Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” D abeit

, 231 F.3d

at 984 (internal quotations and citation omitted).

AFFIRMED.