alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ADRIAN GUARDADO

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. '

'

'

'

'

' No. 08

- 1 4

- 00 083

- CR

Appeal from the

1 71 st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20130D03559 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’ s third motion for extension of time to file the brief

until August 27 , 201 4

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

THE APPELLANT ’ S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Veronica Teresa Lerma

, the Appellant ’ s Attorney

,

prepare the Appellant ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before August 27 , 201 4

.

IT IS SO ORDE RED this 2 2 nd day of July , 2014

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera and Rodriguez, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF, AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 2,
1999 INCLUDED IN REGISTRANT'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER
ENDED OCTOBER 2, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND THE NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           2,058
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,883
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,462
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,395
<PP&E>                                           1,476
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  16,306
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,945
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            21
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,340
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    16,306
<SALES>                                          8,965
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,965
<CGS>                                            4,037
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,974
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (18)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (28)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        27
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (55)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (55)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Frank ESCARCEGA-RAMIREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 07-51205

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 30, 2008.

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

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

*408Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Frank Esearcega-Ramirez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. *United States v. Pineda-Amilano,*492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir.2007), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 128 S.Ct. 872, 169 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008). The 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
|   | (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 Fund. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: | August 23 , 2010 |   |   |   | RIDGEWOOD ENERGY S FUND, LLC                    |
|--------|------------------|--------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   |             | By:    | /s/    |   | ROBERT E. SWANSON                                    |
|   |             |   | Name:  |   | Robert E. Swanson                                    |
|   |             |   | Title: |   | Chief Executive Officer                              |
|   |             |   |   |   | (Principal Executive Officer)                        |
|   |             |   |   |   |                                                 |
| Dated: | August 23 , 2010 |   |   |   |                                                 |
|   |             | By:    | /s/    |   | KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRY                                 |
|   |             |   | Name:  |   | Kathleen P. McSherry                                 |
|   |             |   | Title: |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |             |   |   |   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)         |
|   |             |   |   |   |
|   |             |   |   |   |

----
#### In the Matter of Jose M., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 177]

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Susan Larabee, J.), entered on or about October 2, 1996, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent, following a fact-finding determination that he committed acts, which if committed by an adult, would con*174stitute the crimes of robbery in the first degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, two counts of robbery in the second degree, robbery in the third degree, assault in the second degree, assault in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him with the New York State Division for Youth, in a secure facility, for a period of 3 years, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the finding that appellant committed the designated felony acts of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]), striking the marking “designated felony acts” as to the counts of assault in the second degree and robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]), and remanding the matter to the Family Court for a new dispositional hearing, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

When appellant’s proceeding was removed to Family Court, the petition was expressly marked “Designated Felony” as required by Family Court Act § 311.1 (7). However, since the copy furnished to appellant did not bear the required marking due to an error in copying, it was jurisdictionally defective for failing to lawfully notify him of the charges outstanding after removal, precluding the Family Court from finding that he committed the designated felony acts of robbery in the first degree and robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [2] [a]; *see, Matter of David M.,*229 AD2d 345; *Matter of Warren*W., 216 AD2d 225). In view of the jurisdictional nature of the defect, we find the People’s arguments addressed to actual notice and waiver to be without merit.

Since the documents furnished with the petition only indicated that appellant had previously committed acts, which if committed by an adult, would constitute the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth and seventh degrees, the counts of assault in the second degree and robbery in the second degree (Penal Law § 160.10 [1]) were improperly included as designated felony acts *(see,*Family Ct Act § 301.2 [8] [v], [vi]). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Williams and Colabella, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

BRENDA A. OWENS,

Petitioner

v.

LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 3 MM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 28th day of February, 2017

, the Petition for Leave to File Petition

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED

.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JONATHAN F. BERNS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D16-1946

)

LAUREN FRIEDER, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed March 21, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Frances M. Perrone, 

Acting Circuit, Judge.

Allison M. Perry of Florida Appeals & 

Mediations, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Frank C. Miranda of Frank C. Miranda, 

P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

KHOUZAM, MORRIS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19D0169. TIFFANY N. CAGE v. WILLIE C. BUCHANAN, JR.

In March 2017, Tiffany N. Cage filed a complaint seeking a divorce from

Willie C. Buchanan, Jr., on the ground that the marriage was irretrievably broken.

Cage subsequentlymoved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting thatshe is entitled

to a divorce as a matter of law because there are no outstanding issues between the

parties. The trial court denied Cage’s motion based in part on the parties’ failure to

submit a settlement agreement that resolves all issues. The court also highlighted that

the matter was not ready for a final hearing owing to an incomplete record despite

multiple requests by the court to both sides to submit missing documents. Cage filed

a timely application seeking discretionary review of the court’s order. We, however,

lack jurisdiction.

The trial court’s order denying Cage’s motion for judgment on the pleadings

is an interlocutory order because the divorce action remains pending below. Cage

therefore was required to follow the interlocutory appeal procedures set forth in

OCGA § 5-6-34 (b). See Bailey v. Bailey, 266 Ga. 832, 832-833 (471 SE2d 213)

(1996); Scruggs v. Ga. Dept. of Human Resources, 261 Ga. 587, 588-589 (1) (408

SE2d 103) (1991). Where, as here, both discretionary and interlocutory appeal

procedures apply, an applicant must follow the interlocutory appeal procedures and

obtain a timely certificate of immediate review from the trial court before filing an

application. See Scruggs, 261 Ga. at 588-589 (1).

Cage’s failure to comply with the interlocutory appeal procedures deprives us

of jurisdiction over this application, which is hereby DISMISSED.

November 28, 2018
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.

11/28/2018
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Annual Report of Burger King Holdings,Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for theperiod ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the“Report”), I, Ben K. Wells, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:          1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of    Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of    1934, as amended; 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/ Ben K. Wells       Ben K. Wells     Chief Financial OfficerDated: August 31, 2006A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Burger King Holdings, Inc.and will be retained by Burger King Holdings, Inc. and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.
An official website of the United States governmentHere’s how you knowHere’s how you know**Official websites use .gov**A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
				**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**A **lock**(Locked padlock icon) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.Federal Maritime Commission



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        SearchFederal Maritime Commission



Menu
				Close
							AboutComplaints and AssistanceLicensing and CertificationProceedingsDatabases and PublicationsNews and Advisories



Affilite Info for Search FMC.gov
        Search FMC.gov
        Search Home
 About
 Bureaus and Offices
 Bureau of Enforcement, Investigations, and Compliance (BEIC)
 Investigators
 On this page
Region 1


Region 1 Contact InformationRegion 2


Region 2 Contact InformationRegion 3


Region 3 Contact Information



The Commission’s Investigators focus on enforcement activity. The FMC has 3 regions nationwide, with staff located in major port and transportation centers. These regions are coordinated by the Director, Office of Investigations in Washington, DC.


Region 1


**Covers the Northeast and Midwest**



ColoradoConnecticutDelawareIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyMaine



MarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMissouriNebraskaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew York



North DakotaOhioPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth DakotaVermontVirginiaWest VirginiaWisconsin






Region 1 Contact Information


**Matthew D. ForstPhone:** 732-283-2497**Email:**MForst@fmc.gov



**Erin TasovaPhone:** 732-283-2496**Email:**ETasova@fmc.gov






Region 2


**Primarily covers the Southeast and Gulf**



AlabamaArkansasFloridaGeorgia



LouisianaMississippiPuerto RicoSouth Carolina



TennesseeTexas






Region 2 Contact Information


**Yeseira DiazPhone:**954-963-5362**Email:** YDiaz@fmc.gov



**Adam SinkoPhone:**281-386-8211**Email:** ASinko@fmc.gov






Region 3


**Covers the West Coast**



AlaskaArizonaCaliforniaHawaii



IdahoMontanaNevadaOregon



UtahWashingtonWyoming






Region 3 Contact Information


**John ClausenPhone:**310-780-4639**Email:** JClausen@fmc.gov



**Gabriel PadillaPhone:**310-780-2675**Email:**GPadilla@fmc.gov Return to top
    
    
    
    **FMC Information**
    
    
    
    About the FMC
    
    
    
    Employment Opportunities
    
    
    
    Site Policies
    
    
    
    FOIA
    
    
    
    **Government Information**
    
    
    
    Inspector General
    
    
    
    U.S. Office of Special Counsel
    
    
    
    Open Government at the FMC
    
    
    
    USA.gov
    
    
    
    Federal Maritime Commission
    
    
    Our mission is to **ensure a competitive and reliable** **international ocean transportation supply system** that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices.
    
    
    
    X
    
    YouTube
    
    LinkedIn800 North Capitol Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20573inquiries@fmc.gov
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 13

- 00372

- CR

DAVID ALLEN RUSSELL

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 199th District Court of Collin County , Texas Trial Cause No. 199

- 81323

- 2012

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered thi s cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 29, 2015
#### Donna LEAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCAL 32BJ, SEIU, Allied International Union, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-3102-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 11, 2011.

Donna Leak, Bronx, NY, pro se.

Andrew L. Strom, Office of the General Counsel for SEIU Local 32BJ, New York, NY, for Local 32BJ, SEIU.

David A. Mintz, Weissman & Mintz LLC, New York, NY, for Allied International Union.

PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., GUIDO CALABRESI, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-appellant Donna Leak, *pro se,*appeals from a June 23, 2010 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Stein, *J.),*which dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim and denied her leave to amend. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

We review *de novo*the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), “construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.” *Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.,*282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002). We review the denial of a motion for leave to amend the complaint for abuse of discretion. *McCarthy v. Dun & Bradstreet Corp.,*482 F.3d 184, 200 (2d Cir.2007).

For substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s well-reasoned report and recommendation, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed Leak’s complaint and denied her motion to amend as futile.

We have considered all of Leak’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.
#### DOMINION RESOURCES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant. Dominion Resources, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 2011-5084, 2011-5087.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

May 20, 2011.

Eric R. Fox, Ivins, Phillips & Barker, Chartered, Washington, DC, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Carl D. Wasserman, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant.

*894ON MOTION

ORDER

Upon consideration of the United States’ motion to dismiss appeal no. 2011-5084,*

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The motion is granted.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs in 2011-5084.

(3) The revised official caption for 2011-5087 is reflected above.

*

 The United States, requests that this dismissal be with prejudice; however, it is not the practice of this court to dismiss with or without prejudice.
#### Welquis Lopez, Appellant, v Retail Property Trust et al., Respondents.

[986 NYS2d 857]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), entered May 16, 2012, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint. The defendants showed that the subject escalator was functioning properly before and after the accident and that they did not have notice of any defect *(see Lasser v Northrop Grumman Corp.,*55 AD3d 561 [2008]; *Hardy v Lojan Realty Corp.,*303 AD2d 457 [2003]).

In opposition, the plaintiff submitted an expert’s affidavit. As the expert’s affidavit is speculative and conclusory, and assumes facts not supported by the evidence, it does not raise a triable issue of fact *(see Shapiro v Gurwin Jewish Geriatric Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr.,*84 AD3d 1348 [2011]; *Ioffe v Hampshire House Apt. Corp.,*21 AD3d 930 [2005]; *Gralnik v Brighton Beach Assoc.,*3 AD3d 518 [2004]; *Scola v Sun Intl. N. Am.,*279 AD2d 466 [2001]). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination.

Mastro, J.E, Leventhal, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2363

MELVIN B. WELLS, JR.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JOSEPH ORANGE, SSG.

Military Police; MICHALE J. SERRA,

Investigator (MP); MICHAEL J. HUFLER; SOPHIE

GONZALEZ, Sgt. Military Police; C. CARTER,

Lieutenant, and Provose Marshal,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (CA-04-292-2)

Submitted: February 24, 2005 Decided: March 4, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvin B. Wells, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Lynn Van

Valkenburg, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,

for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Melvin B. Wells, Jr., appeals the district court’s order

denying his civil action seeking damages as a result of his arrest

by military police at Fort Eustis. We have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. See Wells v. United States, No.

CA-04-292-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 18, 2004). 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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6331

TERRY LEE TAYLOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

M. D. GAGLIONE, Doctor; M. D. MATTHEWS,

Doctor; VIRGINIA BEACH MEDICAL DEPARTMENT

FACILITY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (CA-96-90-AM)

Submitted: May 16, 1996 Decided: June 6, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Lee Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Taylor v. Gaglione, No. CA-96-90-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 8, 1996).

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
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

BRENDA A. OWENS,

Petitioner

v.

LEHIGH VALLEY HOSPITAL,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 3 MM 2017

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 28th day of February, 2017, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is DENIED.