alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"id":1023,"date":"2015-03-11T09:18:43","date_gmt":"2015-03-11T13:18:43","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=1023"},"modified":"2018-08-14T09:19:16","modified_gmt":"2018-08-14T13:19:16","slug":"commission-meeting-scheduled-for-march-18-2015","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/commission-meeting-scheduled-for-march-18-2015\/","title":{"rendered":"Commission Meeting Scheduled for March 18, 2015"},"content":{"rendered":"<div>March 11, 2015<\/div>\n<h2>Sunshine Act Meeting<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Time and Date<\/strong>:<br \/>\nMarch 18, 2015; 10:00 AM<\/p>\n<p><strong>Place<\/strong>:<br \/>\n800 North Capitol Street, N.W.<br \/>\nFirst Floor Hearing Room<br \/>\nWashington, D.C.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Status<\/strong>:<br \/>\nThe first portion of the meeting will be held in Open Session; the second in Closed Session.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Matters to be Considered<\/strong>:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Open Session<\/strong><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Briefing on Monitoring the Latin American Trades<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><strong>Closed Session<\/strong><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Briefing on Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services Inter-Agency Outreach<\/li>\n<li>S. 2444 \u2013 Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><strong>Contact:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Karen V. Gregory<br \/>\nSecretary<br \/>\n202-523-5725<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>March 11, 2015 Sunshine Act Meeting Time and Date: March 18, 2015; 10:00 AM Place: 800 North Capitol Street, N.W. First Floor Hearing Room Washington, D.C. Status: The first portion of the meeting will be held in Open Session; the second in Closed Session. Matters to be Considered: Open Session... <a class=\"read-more\" href=\"\/commission-meeting-scheduled-for-march-18-2015\/\">Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[26,4],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1023"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1023"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1023\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1024,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1023\/revisions\/1024"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1023"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1023"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1023"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
#### Rashid Qawi AL-AMIN, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, in his official capacity; Linda Shear, in her individual and official capacities; Rufus Fleming, in his individual and official capacities; G.P. Williams, in his individual and official capacities; S.J. Advent, in his individual and official capacities; S. Baylor, in his individual and official capacities; D.M. Ferguson, in his/her individual and official capacities; M.L. Pope, in his individual and official capacities; Mr. Ferrow, in his individual and official capacities; Charlie Davis, in his individual and official capacities; Blaine Brock, Food Service Manager, an employee of Compass Group USA, Inc. d/b/a Canteen Correctional Services; Clyde Alderman, in his individual and official capacities, Defendants—Appellees.

No. 10-6786.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 18, 2010.

Decided: Nov. 30, 2010.

Rashid Qawi Al-Amin, Appellant Pro Se. Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Paul Graham Beers, Glenn, Feldmann, Darby *&**845Goodlatte, Roanoke, Virginia; Peter M. Coppinger, Gregory D. Cote, McCarter & English, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellees.

Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rashid Qawi Al-Amin seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing one of the defendants as a party. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Al-Amin seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appeal-able interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.*
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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/ Bobby R. Johnson, Jr.Bobby R. Johnson, Jr.Chief Executive Officer and
PresidentAugust 9, 2007
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Applicants – April 14, 2016","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"ZQhYD8UB8F\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-april-14-2016\/\">Applicants – April 14, 2016<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-april-14-2016\/embed\/#?secret=ZQhYD8UB8F\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants – April 14, 2016” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"ZQhYD8UB8F\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"cmoran","title":"Commissioner Sola Speaks at LNG Bunkering Summit - Federal Maritime Commission","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"I9fkcYNXkK\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/ftdo\/commissioner-sola-speaks-at-lng-bunkering-summit\/\">Commissioner Sola Speaks at LNG Bunkering Summit<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/ftdo\/commissioner-sola-speaks-at-lng-bunkering-summit\/embed\/#?secret=I9fkcYNXkK\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Commissioner Sola Speaks at LNG Bunkering Summit” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"I9fkcYNXkK\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Commissioner Louis Sola spoke at the LNG Bunkering Summit 2023 North America, participating on a panel that explored the policy and operational issues related to Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) bunkering. The event was held in Miami, FL, on November 14-16, 2023, and focused on supply chain sustainability, LNG bunkering, and supporting visions for cleaner fuels. […]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/seal_final_sm.jpg","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":293}
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 28, 2024

NO. 03

- 23

- 00508

- CR

Daniel Keith Smith, Sr. , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 424TH DISTRICT COURT OF BURNET COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES BAKER, TRIANA AND KELLY
AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

trial court’s judgment of conviction

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of

conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjudica t i on of costs

is made.
EXHIBIT 32.02

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kana Software, Inc. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John M. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report, to which this certification
is attached as Exhibit 32.02, 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 Registrant.



|                    |  |                              
|------------------- |  | -----------------------------
|Dated: May 14, 2007 |  | /s/ John M. Thompson         
|                    |  | John M. Thompson             
|                    |  | Chief Financial Officer      
|                    |  | (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Jose Dolores BERUMEN-CORREA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 06-70821.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 2, 2010.

Jaime Jasso, California Alien Rights Project, LLC, Westlake Village, CA, for Petitioner.

CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Cindy S. Ferrier, Michelle E. Gorden Latour, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Dolores Berumen-Correa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims, *Khan v. Holder,*584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Berumen-Correa’s equal protection and due process retroactivity challenges to the IJ’s denial of section 212(c) relief are foreclosed by *Abebe v. Mukasey,*554 F.3d 1203, 1207, 1208 n. 7 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Beru-men-Correa’s remaining contentions because he failed to exhaust them before the BIA. *See Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004); *Zara v. Ashcroft,*383 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir.2004) (the exhaustion requirement applies to “streamlined” cases).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
National Shipper Advisory Committee to Federal Maritime Commission (FMC)

Sub-Committee: Data & Visibility

Recommendation

In accordance with Fact Finding 29, Federal Maritime Commission establish the National Ocean 

Carrier Advisory Committee (NOCAC) comprised of all ocean container carriers serving the 

United States within the next ninety (90) days.

Purpose: Historically, shippers could collectively engage with the ocean carriers at the 

conference and then discussion level agreements – Asia North America Eastbound Rate 

Agreement (ANERA), Transpacific Westbound Rate Agreement (TWRA) and then Westbound 

Transpacific Stabilization Agreement (WTSA) and Transpacific Stabilization Agreement (TSA)

for industry level conversations on national ocean container opportunities, challenges, and 

priorities. With the dissolution of TSA, shippers and shipper organizations must have one-onone or alliance level conversations on what are national and regional topics, considerations, and 

impacts. These smaller scope conversations diminish efforts to identify common national 

interests and priorities, and leverage existing data, research and analysis from system members 

and sectors move to industry-based review, reflection, problem-solving and implementation to

address long standing national ocean container shipping issues. 

For these reasons, we, as the unified National Shipper Advisory Committee, hereby recommend 

that the Federal Maritime Commission establish the National Ocean Carrier Advisory Committee 

(NOCAC) comprised of all ocean container carriers serving the United States within the next 

ninety (90) days.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3136 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to strengthen the disclosure 

requirements for institutions of higher education related to foreign gifts 

and contracts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 12, 2021 

Mr. BROOKS (for himself, Mr. WEBSTER of Florida, Mr. GOODEN of Texas, 

Mr. MOORE of Alabama, Mr. BABIN, Mr. KELLY of Mississippi, and Mr. 

GAETZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to strengthen 

the disclosure requirements for institutions of higher education related to foreign gifts and contracts. 

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 ‘‘Zero Foreign Influence 

5 in Education Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF FOREIGN GIFTS AND CONTRACTS. 

7 Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

8 U.S.C. 1011f) is amended— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3136 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘the value’’ 

2 and all that follows through ‘‘calendar year,’’; 

3 (2) in subsection (b)— 

4 (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ‘‘the 

5 identity of each foreign source (whether a nat6 ural person or a legal entity), and’’ before ‘‘the 

7 aggregate dollar’’; and 

8 (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘, and 

9 the name of each foreign government (including 

10 the name of each specific government agency or 

11 department, if applicable)’’ before the period; 

12 and 

13 (3) in paragraph (1) of subsection (c)— 

14 (A) by inserting ‘‘the identity of the for15 eign source,’’ before ‘‘the amount,’’; and 

16 (B) by striking ‘‘and a description of’’ and 

17 inserting ‘‘the identity of the specific depart18 ment, college, project, or other division of the 

19 institution that is the recipient (if applicable), 

20 and a description of the intended purpose and’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
----

| Subsidiaries of Newport Bancorp,      Inc. |   | PercentageOwnership |   | Jurisdiction orState of Incorporation |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                                       |   |                |   |                                  |
| Newport      Federal Savings Bank          |   | 100%                |   | United      States                    |

| Subsidiaries of NewportFederalSavings Bank |   | PercentageOwnership |   | Jurisdiction orState of Incorporation |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                                       |   |                |   |                                  |
| NewportFed      Investments, Inc.          |   | 100%                |   | Rhode      Island                     |

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

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

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

 December 30, 2015

Order 

Clerk

December 30, 2015

151520(51)

SHANNON BITTERMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 151520

v COA: 319663

Saginaw CC: 13-019397-CZ

CHERYL D. BOLF,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellee to extend the time 

to file her supplemental brief is GRANTED. The supplemental brief will be accepted for 

filing if submitted on or before January 13, 2016.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 19a0231n.06

No. 18-2137

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

GABRIELLE WILLIAMS

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

OAKWOOD HEALTHCARE, INC., d/b/a 

BEAUMONT HOSPITAL - DEARBORN 

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE: SUHRHEINRICH, THAPAR, and LARSEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Gabrielle Williams was a phlebotomist at Oakwood Healthcare, 

Inc., d/b/a Beaumont Hospital – Dearborn (“Beaumont”). In February 2017, her employment was 

terminated after she sent private Facebook messages to a coworker’s wife, accusing the coworker 

of having an affair. Williams filed this lawsuit against Beaumont, asserting that she was fired in 

violation of Michigan’s Whistleblowers’ Protection Act (“WPA”), Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The district court granted summary 

judgment to Beaumont, disposing of all claims. 

In this appeal, Williams challenges the entirety of the district court’s ruling. We review 

the summary judgment ruling de novo and find that only one argument warrants attention here: 

Williams asserts that the district court erred by applying a “clear and convincing” burden of proof 

to her claim that she actually reported a violation of law. Under the WPA, the “clear and 
No. 18-2137, Williams v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc.

-2-

convincing” standard only applies to “about to report” claims, not “actual report” claims. MICH.

COMP. LAWS § 15.363(4). However, this distinction has no bearing on the result because Williams 

has not presented any credible evidence to support her claim even under the lower preponderance 

standard.

Having duly considered the balance of Williams’ appellate arguments, we find that they 

merely rehash arguments fully and properly disposed of by the district court. The district court’s 

opinion represents a well-reasoned and proper application of the law to the record facts. Williams’ 

arguments fail to identify any additional error. Concluding that a full opinion explicitly addressing 

her arguments would be entirely duplicative, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district 

court based on the analysis set forth in its September 4, 2018 opinion.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 7, 2019 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00341-CV 

MESQUITE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant 

V. 

MARIA R. SALAZAR, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-12678 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Whitehill, and Justice Nowell 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss appeal based on settlement. We 

grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a). 

190341F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/ 

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

MESQUITE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL 

DISTRICT, Appellant 

No. 05-19-00341-CV V. 

MARIA R. SALAZAR, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 160th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-12678. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. 

Justices Whitehill and Nowell participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

 We ORDER each party bear its own costs of this appeal as agreed. 

Judgment entered May 7, 2019.