alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Jim Kelly, Karl Baldwin, and Wood Master Homes v. Karen Tracy

Appellate case number: 01

- 18

- 00913

- CV

Trial court case number: 1091620

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 1 of Harris County

Appellee, Karen Tracy, has filed her fifth motion to extend time, citing appellee’s death on February 25, 2019, while this appeal was pending. Appellee’s motion explains

that “ [p] robate has not been established and the undersigned is not authorized to proc e ed with the representation of the estate,” and indicates appellee’s sister may have employed her own counsel and begun probate proceedings. As with her previous motions, appellee requests a 30

- day extension. Ten days have passed without a response from ap pellants.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.3(a)(1). Although our prior orders warned no further extensions would be granted absent exceptional circumstances, we find appellee’s death to be an exceptional

circumstance. Accordingly, we grant the motion and order appellee’ s briefing deadline

extended to November 18, 2019.

We further notify appell ee that the Court will consider requests for 60

- day extensions of time in this case so long as appellee’s motion updates the status of the probate proceedings and the approximate da te appellee’s brief may be filed. Appellee’s motions to extend time must continue to comply with the Rules. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.1, 10.5(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: _ October 31, 2019

_____________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         358,772
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  307,903
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,219
<INVENTORY>                                     65,180
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               758,561
<PP&E>                                      22,856,331
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,164,431
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,485,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,796,209
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,485,940
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,183,638
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,881,676
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             444,662
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                857,300
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            857,300
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   857,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Cody, Appellant.

[Cite as *State v. Cody,*118 Ohio St.3d 366, 2008-Ohio-2701.]

(No. 2008-0266

Submitted April 22, 2008

Decided June 11, 2008.)

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted.

*367Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jennifer L. Maloon, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Stephen Dehnart, for appellant.

{¶ 2} Because the court of appeals entered its judgment on appellant’s fifth assignment of error below prior to the release by this court of its opinion in *State v. Cabrales,*118 Ohio St.3d 54, 2008-Ohio-1625, 886 N.E.2d 181, this cause is remanded to the court of appeals for consideration of whether the court of appeals’ judgment should be modified in view of our opinion in *State v. Cabrales.*

Moyer, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Brunswick
Technologies, Inc.'s unaudited consolidated financial statements as of and for
the six months ended September 30, 1998 and September 30, 1997 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.  Amounts are rounded
to thousands
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,267
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,259
<ALLOWANCES>                                       130
<INVENTORY>                                      4,666
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,795
<PP&E>                                          12,346
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,624
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  28,729
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,509
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,750
<OTHER-SE>                                         135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    28,729
<SALES>                                         30,325
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,325
<CGS>                                           23,458
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,319
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (315)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,863
<INCOME-TAX>                                       667
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,196
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,196
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 248 (Thursday, December 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 66894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31686]



[[Page 66894]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP99-518-025]


PG&E Gas Transmission, Northwest Corporation; Notice of 
Negotiated Rates

December 19, 2001.
    Take notice that on December 12, 2001, PG&E Gas Transmission, 
Northwest Corporation (GTN) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1-A, Substitute Seventeenth Revised 
Sheet No. 7 and Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 7B. GTN requests 
that these substitute tariff sheets become effective November 1, 2001.
    GTN states that these sheets are being filed to reflect the 
implementation of one negotiated rate agreement.
    GTN further states that a copy of this filing has been served on 
GTN's jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory 
agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules 
and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may 
also be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``RIMS'' 
link, select ``Docket#'' and follow the instructions (call 202-208-2222 
for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-31686 Filed 12-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

 Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

 Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

 The Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests Resource Advisory Committee will meet on Friday, January 11, 2002, at the Wenatchee National Forest headquarters main conference room, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, Washington. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and continue until 3 p.m. During this meeting committee members will discuss committee organization, adopt bylaws, choose a committee chairperson, and set the specific agenda for the January 31, 2002 meeting. All Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests Resource Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are welcome to attend.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Direct questions regarding this meeting to Paul Hart, Designated Federal Official, USDA, Wenatchee National Forest, 215 Melody Lane, Wenatchee, Washington 98801, 509-662-4335.

Dated: December 18, 2001.

Sonny J. O'Neal,

Forest Supervisor, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests.

[FR Doc. 01-31581 Filed 12-21-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"Skills Development Training - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"TpnorqS9NP\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/education-and-outreach\/skills-development-training\/\">Skills Development Training<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/services\/education-and-outreach\/skills-development-training\/embed\/#?secret=TpnorqS9NP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Skills Development Training” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"TpnorqS9NP\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\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\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n"}
#### Maria Teresa GOMEZ-HERNANDEZ, a.k.a. Teresa Hernandez; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-70251.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 12, 2008.*

Filed May 16, 2008.

Maria Teresa Gomez-Hernandez, Santa Paula, CA, pro se.

Zayra Nereyda Hernandez-Gomez, Santa Paula, CA, pro se.

Francisco Javier Hernandez-Gomez, Santa Paula, CA, pro se.

Terri Leon-Benner, Shelley R. Goad, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, THOMAS and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s order denying petitioners’ application for cancellation of removal. We have reviewed petitioners’ response to the court’s February 12, 2008 order to show cause, respondent’s motion for summary disposition and the record.

Although in their response to the order to show cause, lead petitioners Maria Teresa Gomez-Hernandez and Francisco Javier Hernandez-Sotelo claim that they are the parents of an adult permanent resident daughter, and argue that this court has jurisdiction over the question of whether their adult daughter is a qualifying relative, a review of the administrative record reveals that petitioners did not raise that issue before either the Immigration Judge or the BIA. We lack jurisdiction to consider unexhausted claims that could have been corrected by the Board of Immigration Appeals. *See 8*U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); *Barron v. Ashcroft,*358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

Moreover, none of the four petitioners presented any evidence, either before the Immigration Judge or on appeal before the BIA that they had a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). *See Molina-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002). The BIA therefore correctly concluded that, as a matter of law, petitioners were ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

*430All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

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.
#### Nancy Melendez CAMILO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2010-5069.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 30, 2010.

Michael D.J. Eisenberg, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jessica R. Toplin, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Nancy Melendez Camilo moves for leave to file her appendix out of time and for reconsideration of the court’s order dismissing her appeal for failure to file an appendix.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

Camilo’s motions are granted. The mandate is recalled, the dismissal order is vacated, and the appeal is reinstated. If the appendix has not already been submitted, it is due within 14 days of the date of filing of this order.
#### Anthony J. COURI, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 15803.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

May 27, 1957.

Linus J. Hammond, St. Paul, Minn., for appellant.

George E. MacKinnon, U. S. Atty., St. Paul, Minn., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from District Court docketed and dismissed for lack of prosecution, on motion of appellee.
#### Marco MONTEJO-CASTANEDA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY,* Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-76527.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and submitted May 13, 2008.

Filed May 22, 2008.

*497Reynold E. Finnegan, Finnegan & Diba A Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Cac-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of The District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security San Francisco, CA, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Oil, Margaret Kuehne Taylor, Justice Department, Executive Office for Immigr. Review, Jem C. Sponzo, M. Jocelyn Wright, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, for Respondent.

Before: SILVERMAN and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ,** District Judge.

*

 Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 43(c)(2).

**

 The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ***

Marco Montejo-Castaneda, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IT’) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. He argues that the BIA’s summary affirmance was procedurally improper and that the denial of his application was erroneous. Because we agree that the BIA erred in issuing a summary affirmance, we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

The BIA may summarily affirm without opinion an IJ’s decision under certain conditions set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4). Summary affirmance is inappropriate, however, when an appeal raises procedural due process claims. *Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales,*486 F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir.2007).

Before the BIA, Montejo-Castaneda argued that the IJ violated his right to counsel and deprived him of an opportunity to present witnesses. AR 5-12. Because, by issuing a summary affirmance, the BIA has failed to address Montejo-Castaneda’s procedural due process arguments, we grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings. *Montes-Lopez,*486 F.3d at 1165 (“by summarily affirming the IJ’s decision, the BIA ignored — and denied review of — [the alien’s] claim that his right to counsel was violated”). In light of our disposition, we need not address Montejo-Castaneda’s remaining arguments.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED AND REMANDED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Artemio SALVADOR-DANIEL, also known as Daniel Salgado-Vences, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-50266

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 16, 2010.

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

Judy Fulmer Madewell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Henry Joseph Bemporad, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Artemio Salvador-Daniel appeals the 21-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation. He argues that his within-guidelines sentence is greater than necessary to satisfy the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), because it overstates the seriousness of his criminal history and fails to provide just punishment for the offense in light of his history and characteristics, including his motive for reentering the country. He also contends that the sentence is greater than necessary because the illegal reentry guidelines double counted his criminal history by using a prior conviction both to enhance his offense level and to calculate his criminal history category.

Because Salvador-Daniel did not object to his sentence in the district court, review is for plain error only. *See United States v. Peltier,*505 F.3d 389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007).

In *United States v. Duarte,*569 F.3d 528, 529-31 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 378, 175 L.Ed.2d 231 (2009), we held that there was no impermissible double counting in the guidelines calculations that rendered the sentence un*892reasonable. *See also*U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2, comment, (n.6). Further, Salvador-Daniel’s disagreement with the propriety of the sentence imposed and with the district court’s weighing of the mitigating factors he presented in support of a lesser sentence does not suffice to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to his within-guidelines sentence. *See United States v. Gomez-Herrera,*523 F.3d 554, 565-66 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 624, 172 L.Ed.2d 617 (2008); *United States v. Rodriguez,*523 F.3d 519, 526 (5th Cir.), *cert. denied,*- U.S. -, 129 S.Ct. 624, 172 L.Ed.2d 616 (2008); *United States v. Alonzo,*435 F.3d 551, 554-55 (5th Cir.2006). 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.
**Exhibit 23.1**
**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the followingRegistration Statements of Continucare Corporation:
(i)  Form S-3 No. 333-16501 and RelatedProspectus (ii)  Form S-3 No. 333-43231 and Related Prospectus (iii)  Form S-8 No. 333-44431 (iv)  Form S-8 No. 333-61246 (v)  Form S-8 No. 333-119337
of our report dated September 22, 2004 (except for the lastparagraph of Note 1, as to which the date is May 18, 2005), whichincludes explanatory information regarding restatement of theCompany’s June 30, 2004 financial statements for the correction ofan error, with respect to the consolidated financial statements ofContinucare Corporation included in Amendment No. 1 to the AnnualReport (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended June 30, 2004.                                            /s/ Ernst & Young LLP   Certified Public Accountants      
West Palm Beach, Florida