alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

CECILE FOY GSANGER NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

July 14, 2015

Hon. Soledad M. Valenciano

SPIVEY VALENCIANO, PLLC

McAllister Plaza

9601 McAllister Freeway, Ste. 130

San Antonio, TX 78216

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Hon. Alan T. Ozuna

Denton, Navarro, Rocha & Bernal

701 E Harrison, Suite 100

Harlingen, TX 78550

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Hon. James Kenneth Spivey

SPIVEY VALENCIANO, PLLC

McAllister Plaza

9601 McAllister Freeway, Ste. 130

San Antonio, TX 78216

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * Hon. Eddie Lucio

Law Office of Eddie Lucio

422 E. Harrison Avenue

Harlin gen, TX 78550

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Hon. Ricardo J. Navarro

Attorney at Law

701 E. Harrison, Suite 100

Harlingen, TX 78550

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Hon. Robert L. Drinkard

Attorney at Law

701 E. Harrison Avenue, Ste. 100

Harlingen, TX 78550

* DELIVERE D VIA E

- MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13

- 13

- 00340

- CV

Tr.Ct.No. 2013

- DCL

- 03282

- I

Style: PARTNERS DEWATERING INTERNATIONAL, L.C. v. CITY OF RIO

HONDO

Appellee’s motion for rehearing and motion for reconsideration en banc in the

above cause w ere this day DENIED by this Court.

Very trul y yours,

Cecile Foy Gsanger, Clerk

CFG:dot
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Bernard D. Shapiro, Appellant. Incorporated Village of Muttontown, Respondent; Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

[863 NYS2d 91]

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 4, 2007, which ruled that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was employed in a major nontenured policymaking or advisory position within the meaning of Labor Law § 565 (2) (e).

Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board’s decision that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. The record reveals that claimant worked for the Incorporated Village of Muttontown as the Village Administrator. It is not disputed that the employer is a governmental entity and that claimant’s position was untenured. Moreover, the powers and duties of the position of Village Administrator were delineated by Local Law No. 1 (2005) of the Village of Muttontown, which included provisions establishing advisory and policymaking aspects of the job. Given the foregoing, the Board properly determined that Labor Law § 565 (2) (e) precluded claimant from obtaining benefits *(see Matter of Newell [County of Nassau—Commissioner of Labor],*9 AD3d 559, 560 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 610 [2004]). Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Board’s decision.

*1140Mercure, J.P, Peters, Spain, Kane and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6042

CARL STANLEY AIKEN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COLIE RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; HENRY MCMASTER, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-99-6-13AK) Submitted: May 25, 2005 Decided: June 3, 2005 Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl Stanley Aiken, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Carl Stanley Aiken, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Aiken has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
<PAGE>

                                                            Exhibit 21
                                                            ----------

                              SUBSIDIARIES OF ANB

Name of Subsidiary                            State of Organization

National Bank of Commerce of Birmingham.......  National Bank
     NBC Securities, Inc......................  Alabama
Bank of Dadeville.............................  Alabama
     Ashland Insurance, Inc...................  Alabama
Alabama Exchange Bank.........................  Alabama
     Tuskegee Loan Company, Inc...............  Alabama
First Gulf Bank...............................  Alabama
First Citizens Bank, National Association.....  National Bank
     Clay County Finance Company, Inc.........  Alabama
First American Bank...........................  Alabama
     Corporate Billing, Inc...................  Alabama
     First Allegiance Mortgage, Inc...........  Alabama
Citizens and Peoples Bank, N.A................  National Bank
John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. TEX. GOV’T1

CODE ANN. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2008). 

NO. 07-07-0350-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

JULY 18, 2008

______________________________

LEONESEO SANCHEZ,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 140 DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; TH

NO. 2007-415,400; HON. JIM BOB DARNELL, PRESIDING

_______________________________

 Abatement and Remand

 _______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., HANCOCK, J., and BOYD, S.J.1

Leoneseo Sanchez (appellant) filed a notice of appeal from his conviction of two

counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. On September 11, 2007, the trial

court filed a certification representing that appellant has the right of appeal. However, the
Became effective September 1, 2007. 2

2

appellate record reflects that appellant failed to sign the certification pursuant to Texas

Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) which requires the certification to be signed by

appellant and a copy served on him. By letter dated April 28, 2008, we notified the court 2

that a supplemental record containing a properly executed certification should be filed with

this court within 45 days. To date, no such record has been received. 

Consequently, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the 140 District Court th

of Lubbock County (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial court shall

take such action necessary to secure and file with this court a certificate of right to appeal

that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) by August 18, 2008. Should

additional time be needed to perform this task, the trial court may request the same on or

before August 18, 2008.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-20593

Vernon King, Jr., 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Jeffery S. Richardson; Terry Bursoh, Assistant Warden; 

Tracy Hutto, Assistant Warden; Ms. Alla, Mailroom Supervisor, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CV-2952

Before Elrod, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Vernon King, Jr., Texas prisoner # 590316, moves for authorization to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) after the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). King has failed to show that he should 

be allowed to proceed IFP on appeal under § 1915(g) or that his appeal of the 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 29, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-20593 Document: 00516259184 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/29/2022
No. 21-20593

2

district court’s judgment presents a nonfrivolous issue. See Banos v. O’Guin, 

144 F.3d 883, 885 (5th Cir. 1998); Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th 

Cir. 1982). The motion for leave to proceed IFP is denied. King’s motion to 

appoint counsel likewise is denied.

The facts surrounding the IFP decision are inextricably intertwined 

with the merits of the appeal. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 

(5th Cir. 1997). The appeal presents no nonfrivolous issues and is dismissed

as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2

The district court in which King filed his instant complaint previously 

sanctioned him $200 and barred him from filing further suits without first 

receiving permission from a judicial officer. See King v. Carter, No. 4:17-CV832 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2017) (unpublished). There is no indication that 

King paid the sanction or received permission to file the instant complaint. 

In light of King’s history, he is ordered to pay a sanction of $300 to the clerk 

of court, and he is barred from filing any pleading in this court or any court 

subject to this court’s jurisdiction until the sanction is paid in full, unless he 

obtains leave of the court in which he seeks to file such pleading. King is 

warned that the filing of repetitive or frivolous pleadings in this court or any 

court subject to this court’s jurisdiction could result in additional sanctions. 

He is directed to review all pending matters and to move to dismiss any that 

are frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive. 

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS 

FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION IMPOSED; SANCTION WARNING 

ISSUED.

Case: 21-20593 Document: 00516259184 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/29/2022
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2886 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide the nonbusiness 

energy property and residential energy efficient property tax incentives 

to residents of certain possessions of the Unites States and other areas. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 16, 2009 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA (for himself, Ms. BORDALLO, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. 

PIERLUISI, and Mr. SABLAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

the nonbusiness energy property and residential energy 

efficient property tax incentives to residents of certain 

possessions of the Unites States and other areas. 

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

3 SECTION 1. ENERGY TAX INCENTIVES FOR RESIDENTS OF 

4 CERTAIN POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED 

5 STATES AND OTHER AREAS. 

6 (a) NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY.—Subsection 

7 (e) of section 25C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

8 is amended by adding at the end the following: 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2886 IH

1 ‘‘(3) CERTAIN POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED

2 STATES, ETC.—For purposes of this section, the 

3 term ‘United States’ includes— 

4 ‘‘(A) Guam, American Samoa, Common5 wealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, 

6 United States Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, 

7 ‘‘(B) Republic of the Marshall Islands, 

8 Federated States of Micronesia, and Republic 

9 of Palau, and 

10 ‘‘(C) any United States Government instal11 lation worldwide, including military bases, em12 bassies and other facilities, whether owned or 

13 leased by the United States Government.’’. 

14 (b) RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENT PROPERTY.— 

15 Subsection (e) of section 25D of such Code is amended 

16 by adding at the end the following: 

17 ‘‘(9) CERTAIN POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED

18 STATES, ETC.—For purposes of this section, the 

19 term ‘United States’ includes— 

20 ‘‘(A) Guam, American Samoa, Common21 wealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, 

22 United States Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, 

23 ‘‘(B) Republic of the Marshall Islands, 

24 Federated States of Micronesia, and Republic 

25 of Palau, and 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2886 IH

1 ‘‘(C) any United States Government instal2 lation worldwide, including military bases, em3 bassies and other facilities, whether owned or 

4 leased by the United States Government.’’. 

5 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

6 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

7 December 31, 2008. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
#### Chemical Bank, Respondent, v Mehdi Fazel, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[665 NYS2d 862]

—Order, Supreme Court, New *33York County (Stephen Crane, J.), entered on or about June 4, 1996, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate his default with respect to an order and judgment (one paper), of the same court and Justice, entered April 15, 1996, granting summary judgment to plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

A party seeking vacatur of a default must establish both the existence of a meritorious claim or defense and a reasonable excuse for the default (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [1]; *Eugene DiLorenzo, Inc. v Dutton Lbr. Co.,*67 NY2d 138; *Arias v Sanchez,*227 AD2d 284). Defendant’s justification for the default is that he did not receive a copy of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, a claim that the court correctly found to be belied by the affidavit of service. Moreover, defendant failed to demonstrate that he possessed a meritorious defense to the action against him. His contention that plaintiff bank failed to sustain its burden of proving that the sale of the collateral was conducted in a commercially reasonable manner is raised for the first time on appeal.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rubin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.
V 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2671 

To authorize the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard 

is operating to issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise 

endorsement for the vessel M/V GEYSIR. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 2, 2009 

Mr. HIMES introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To authorize the Secretary of the department in which the 

Coast Guard is operating to issue a certificate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement for the vessel 

M/V GEYSIR. 

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

3 SECTION 1. COASTWISE ENDORSEMENT RESTORED. 

4 Notwithstanding sections 12112 and 12132 of title 

5 46, United States Code, the Secretary of the department 

6 in which the Coast Guard is operating may issue a certifi7 cate of documentation with a coastwise endorsement for 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2671 IH

1 the M/V GEYSIR (United States official number 

2 622178). 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2744 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2744

To prohibit discrimination in Federal assisted health care services and 
 research programs on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, 
       sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability status.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 8, 2009

    Ms. Richardson (for herself, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mrs. 
  Christensen, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Filner, Ms. Kilpatrick of 
    Michigan, Mrs. Maloney, Ms. Norton, Ms. Roybal-Allard, and Ms. 
  Bordallo) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit discrimination in Federal assisted health care services and 
 research programs on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, 
       sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability status.

    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 ``Equal Rights for Health Care Act 
Title 42''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON DISCRIMINATION IN FEDERAL ASSISTED HEALTH CARE 
              SERVICES AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS ON THE BASIS OF SEX, RACE, 
              COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER 
              IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY STATUS.

    No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, race, 
color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or 
disability status, be excluded from participation in, be denied the 
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any health care 
service or research program or activity receiving Federal financial 
assistance.
                                 <all>
```
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

Waiver of Default 
 In accordance with the
terms of that certain Promissory Note, dated February 6, 2009 (the “Note”), granted by First Physicians Capital Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), to the undersigned (the
“Holder”), the Holder hereby waives any and all claims or rights pursuant to the terms of the Note relating to the occurrence of an event prior to (and including) the date of this Waiver that would constitute an Event of Default (as
that term is defined in the Note). 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Holder has caused this Waiver to be executed as of the date set forth below. 

Original Outstanding Principal of Holder’s Note:
                                         
                                         
        
  

									
	If Holder is an individual:	 		 	If Holder is an entity:
	
                     
                                         
   
	 		 	
                     
                                         
                   

	Signature	 		 	Name of Entity
				
	Printed Name:  __________________________	 		 	By:	 	
                     
            

		 		 		 	Signature
	Date:  _________________________________	 		 		 	  
 Name: 
	 	  

                     
                                         
                               

					
		 		 		 	Title:	 	
                     
                                         
       

					
		 		 		 	Date:
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 11(A)
                               VIALOG CORPORATION

            CALCULATION OF SHARES USED IN DETERMINING NET LOSS PER SHARE
                                  (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                    Three Months Ended     Six Months Ended
                                         June 30,              June 30,
                                    --------------------  --------------------
                                      1999       2000       1999       2000
                                    ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
<S>                                 <C>        <C>        <C>        <C>
Common stock, beginning of
 period...........................  8,399,066  9,137,854  3,693,672  9,133,569
Weighted average common shares
 issued during period, net........    163,183    235,372  3,446,474    137,559
Common stock options and warrants
 using the treasury stock method..        --         --         --         --
                                    ---------  ---------  ---------  ---------
                                    8,562,249  9,373,226  7,140,146  9,271,128
                                    =========  =========  =========  =========
Net loss (in thousands)...........  $  (5,208) $  (1,087) $  (6,925) $  (2,278)
                                    =========  =========  =========  =========
Basic and diluted net loss per
 share............................  $   (0.61) $   (0.12) $   (0.97) $   (0.25)
                                    =========  =========  =========  =========
</TABLE>

                                       20
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2611 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 21, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to authorize 

the Securing the Cities Initiative of the Department of 

Homeland Security, and for other purposes. 

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


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2611 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF SECURING THE CITIES INI2 TIATIVE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Title XIX of the Homeland Secu4 rity Act of 2002 is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing new section: 

6 ‘‘SEC. 1908. AUTHORIZATION OF SECURING THE CITIES INI7 TIATIVE. 

8 ‘‘(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

9 ‘‘(1) The Securing the Cities Initiative of the 

10 Department uses next generation radiation detection 

11 technology to detect the transport of nuclear and ra12 diological material in urban areas by terrorists or 

13 other unauthorized individuals. 

14 ‘‘(2) The technology used by partners in the Se15 curing the Cities Initiative leverages radiation detec16 tion technology used at ports of entry. 

17 ‘‘(3) The Securing the Cities Initiative has fos18 tered unprecedented collaboration and coordination 

19 among its Federal, State, and local partners. 

20 ‘‘(4) The Securing the Cities Initiative is a crit21 ical national capability to detect the dangerous intro22 duction of nuclear and radiological material. 

23 ‘‘(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

24 is authorized to be appropriated to the Director of the Do25 mestic Nuclear Detection Office of the Department for the 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2611 RFS 

1 Securing the Cities Initiative such sums as may be nec2 essary for each fiscal year, including— 

3 ‘‘(1) for each city in which it has been imple4 mented by fiscal year 2009— 

5 ‘‘(A) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; 

6 ‘‘(B) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and 

7 ‘‘(C) not less than $10,000,000 in 

8 sustainment assistance for each fiscal year 

9 thereafter; and 

10 ‘‘(2) for additional Securing the Cities initia11 tives to be implemented in not fewer than 2 sites 

12 participating in the Urban Area Security Initiative, 

13 such sums as may be necessary each fiscal year to 

14 implement and sustain each additional initiative.’’. 

15 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of con16 tents in section 1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 

17 2002 is amended by inserting after the item relating to 

18 section 1907 the following new item: 

‘‘Sec. 1908. Authorization of Securing the Cities Initiative.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 20, 

2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


dcolon on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with BILLS