alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

No. 21-50012

Vinay Yadav,
Plaintiff—Appellant ,

versus
Frost Bank,
Defendant—Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:20-CV-005

Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: *

This case arises out of Frost Ba nk’s termination of Vinay Yadav and its alleged use of the San Antonio Po lice Department to remove him from bank premises. Adopting a thorough opinion of the magistrate judge, the district court dismissed Yadav’s claims for retaliatory disc harge, defamation, RICO, and intentional infliction of emoti onal distress. The court denied 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* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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 June 29, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-50012 Document: 00515918452 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/29/2021No. 21-50012

2 motion to dismiss his assault claim and remanded that claim to state court as the RICO dismissal meant there was no longer a federal claim in the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). Yadav appeals the dismissal of his claims. Having reviewed the briefs, Yadav’s pleadings, and the applicable law, we agree with the court’s dismissal of all but the assault claim e ssentially for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s opinion. Yadav’s brief also discusses the assault claim, but that claim was appropriately sent back to state court. As a result, we have no basis for considering Yadav’s argumen ts relating to the assault claim.

Affirmed. Case: 21-50012 Document: 00515918452 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/29/2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000829905
<NAME> SOUTHEAST ACQUISITIONS II, L.P.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         385,459
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               385,459
<PP&E>                                       2,287,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,672,759
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          176,854
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,495,905
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,672,759
<SALES>                                          5,045
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,045
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                65,116
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (60,071)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (60,071)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund IV, Ltd. at September 30, 1997, and its statement of
income for the nine months then ended and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to the Form 10Q of CNL Income Fund IV, Ltd. for the nine months ended
September 30, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         463,741
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  307,192
<ALLOWANCES>                                   208,268
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      22,316,051
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,728,860
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,484,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,444,241
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,484,210
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,751,552
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  519,488
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                12,794
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,391,610
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,391,610
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,391,610
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Due to the nature of its industry, CNL Income Fund IV, Ltd. has an unclassified
balance sheet, therefore, no values are shown above for current assets and
current liabilities.
</FN>
        



</TABLE>
**Exhibit 15.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form F-4 No. 333-211405) and related joint information statement/prospectus ofEnersis Américas S.A. of our reports dated April 29, 2016, with respect both to the consolidated financial statements of Enersis Américas S.A. and subsidiaries at December 31, 2015 and to the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting of Enersis Américas S.A. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2015, included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F Amendment No. 2) for the year ended December 31, 2015. 

/s/ EY Ltda. 

EY Ltda. 

Santiago, Chile 

September 7, 2016
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                       Sep-30-1998
<CASH>                             918,715
<SECURITIES>                       000
<RECEIVABLES>                      000
<ALLOWANCES>                       000
<INVENTORY>                        000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   918,715
<PP&E>                             000
<DEPRECIATION>                     000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     10,772,203
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              55,221
<BONDS>                            000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              000
<PREFERRED>                        000
<COMMON>                           000
<OTHER-SE>                         10,716,982
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       10,772,203
<SALES>                            000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   511,359
<CGS>                              000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   144,096
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    367,263
<INCOME-TAX>                       000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                367,263
<DISCONTINUED>                     000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    000
<CHANGES>                          000
<NET-INCOME>                       367,263
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .17
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No.  333-4489)  pertaining  to the Sola  Optical 401 (K) Savings  Plan,  the
Registration  Statement and  amendments  (Form S-8 No.  33-93788,  333-14749 and
333-61797)  pertaining to the Sola  International Inc. Stock Option Plan and the
Sola  Investors'  Stock  Option  Plan  of  Sola   International   Inc.  and  the
Registration  Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-45929)  pertaining to the registration
of  $250,000,000  of common stock and/or debt securities of our report dated May
6, 1999, with respect to the consolidated  financial  statements and schedule of
Sola  International Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended March 31, 1999.


                                                   /s/Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
June 16, 1999
Petition s for Writ s of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Majority and Concurring Opinion s filed September 15 , 2020

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 20

- 00383

- CR

NO. 14

- 20

- 00384

- CR

IN RE DMITRY KRUGLOV , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS County Court No. 3 Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. MD

- 0368264 & MD

- 0368265



### MEMORANDUM CONCURRING OPINION
I write separately to briefly point out that the majority does not follow this court’s binding precedent. Rela tor is required to show he filed his notice of appeal in the trial court. To meet this requirement relator must provide this court with a
file

- stamped copy of his notice of appeal or other proof that the notice was filed in
the trial court. See In re Gomez , 602 S.W.3d 71, 74 (Tex. App.―Houston [14 th2 Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding); In re Flanigan , 578 S.W.3d 634, 626 (Tex. App.―Houston [14 th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding); see also In re Henry , 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.―[14 th Dist.] 2017, orig. pro ceeding) (holding that relator had not established that his motion was pending in trial court in absence of providing file

- stamped copy of motion).
I would follow this court’s binding precedent in deny ing relator’s petition for
writ of mandamus.

/s/ Ken Wise Justice

Panel c onsists of Justices Wise, Bourliot , and Spain

. (Spain, J., majority). Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


Independent Accountants' Review Report

The Board of Directors
Iwerks Entertainment, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet
of Iwerks Entertainment, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996, and the
related unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three-
month and six-month periods ended December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the unaudited
condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the six-month periods ended
December 31, 1996 and 1995.  These financial statements are the responsibility
of the Company's management.

We conducted our reviews in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.  A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data, and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters.  It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted
in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, which will be
performed for the full year with the objective of expressing an opinion
regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly, we do not
express such an opinion.

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that 
should be made to the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements
referred to above for them to be in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet of Iwerks Entertainment, Inc. as of
June 30, 1996, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then ended not presented
herein and in our report dated August 2, 1996 we expressed an unqualified
opinion on those consolidated financial statements.  In our opinion, the
information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet
as of June 30, 1996 is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to
the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.



January 24, 1997


                                         /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
#### Kenneth CRISSUP, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Honorable Thomas GREENWELL; James Odell; Mark W. Stolley, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-40961

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 16, 2014.

Kenneth Crissup, Tennessee Colony, TX, pro se.

Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Kenneth Crissup, Texas prisoner # 1258732, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Judge Thomas Greenwell, James Odell, and Mark Stol-ley. We affirm.

Crissup alleged that the defendants conspired to deprive him of his due process rights and conspired to provide false information to Texas appellate courts concerning his criminal trial. Additionally, he alleged that Greenwell exhibited bias against him and created false documents that became part of the trial record, that Odell presented false information to the state courts, and that Stolley-his defense attorney-provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

Crissup has abandoned his claims based on § 1983. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). He now identifies subsections (2) and (3) of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 as statutory bases for his action. We review this claim for plain error. *See Crawford v. Falcon Drilling Co.,*131 F.3d 1120, 1123-29 (5th Cir.1997); *Forbush v. J.C. Penney Co.,*98 F.3d 817, 822 (5th Cir.1996). On plain error review, we may exercise our discretion to grant relief if Crissup establishes an error that is clear or obvious, that affects his substantial rights, and that seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. *See Crawford,*131 F.3d at 1123-29; *Alaniz v. Zamora-Quezada,*591 F.3d 761, 776 (5th Cir.2009).

The complaint’s claims involving the Due Process Clause and state court proceedings do not implicate subsections 2 and 3 of § 1985. *See Montoya v. FedEx Ground*
      *310
      *Package System, Inc.,*614 F.3d 145, 149 (5th Cir.2010). Thus, Crissup has not shown that there was any error at all, much less clear or obvious error, in denying him § 1985 relief. *See id.; Alaniz,*591 F.3d at 776.

Crissup has abandoned, by failing to brief it, his claim that the district court abused its discretion by denying a new trial. *See Yohey,*985 F.2d at 224-25. Additionally, Crissup fails to show that the district court abused its discretion with regard to discovery. *See Siegert v. Gilley,*500 U.S. 226, 231-32, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991).

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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2433

DENISE A. MILES,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MSA INDUSTRIES/KEMPER CARPET,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-97-323-A)

Submitted: March 12, 1998 Decided: March 23, 1998

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Denise A. Miles, Appellant Pro Se. Francis Joseph Nealon, Eric

Carl Lund, BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, Washington, D.C.,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting summary

judgment to the Defendant in a Title VII discrimination case. 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. Miles v. MSA Industries/Kemper Carpet, No. CA-97-

323-A (E.D. Va. Sept. 12, 1997). 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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from United
Investors Income Properties 1997 First Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000830056
<NAME> UNITED INVESTORS INCOME PROPERTIES
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                             711
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       10
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          12,210
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,954
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,074
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   436
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   334
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       106
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.72<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.19  






ADDENDUM

TO 

INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR SERVICES AGREEMENT 






THIS ADDENDUM (the
“Addendum”) to the Independent Contractor Services Agreement is made and shall
be effective as of the 1st day of August, 2006 



BETWEEN: 



	  	
Sky
Petroleum, Inc., a corporation incorporated in the State of 

Nevada, United States of America, with offices in the City of 

Calgary, in the Province of Alberta, Canada and in the City of 

Austin, in the state of Texas, U.S.A. (“Sky” or the
“Corporation”) 







	  	
and






	  	
Michael Noonan, an individual residing in the City of Austin, 

Texas (“Noonan”) and
acting also for Noonan Advisors, LLC 

(the “Contractor”); 






WHEREAS, the Corporation and
the Contractor are parties to that certain Independent Contractors Services Agreement
dated April 1, 2005 (the “Initial Agreement”); and 



WHEREAS, the Corporation and
the Contractor desire to extend the term of the Initial Agreement through July 31, 2007,
and amend the choice of law provision so that the Initial Agreement, as amended, shall be
governed by the laws of the State of Texas, 



NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises and mutual covenants of the parties, and in consideration of
the Contractor providing consulting services to the Corporation, the Corporation and the
Contractor hereby covenant and agree as follows: 



        1.                 Section
5.01 of the Initial Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read           as
follows:  



	  	
Term
and Termination Provisions. This Addendum shall continue in full force for an initial term
(“Initial Term”) commencing on the Effective Date and ending on July 31, 2007
unless terminated in accordance with Section 5.02 of the Agreement. 






        2.                 Section
7.04 of the Initial Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read           as
follows:  



	  	
This
Addendum shall be construed pursuant to the laws in effect in the State of Texas, and the
parties hereto hereby agree to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the State of Texas and,
if applicable, the federal courts of the United States of America. 





















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the
parties hereby have executed this Addendum effective as of the date and year first above
written. 




	
SKY PETROLEUM, INC. 





By:  /s/ Brent Kinney

        __________________________

        Brent Kinney, Chief Executive Officer 	
CONTRACTOR: 





/s/ Michael Noonan

________________________________

Michael Noonan 





NOONAN ADVISORS, LLC 





By:  /s/ Michael Noonan

        __________________________

        Michael Noonan, Manager
944 A.2d 754

#### PENN’S MARKET I, L.P., Penn’s Market II, L.P., Kurt L. McLaughlin and Herbert J. Farber Associates, Inc., Appellees v. HARLEYSVILLE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued April 14, 2008.

Decided April 18, 2008.

Charles W. Craven, Esq., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P.C., Philadelphia, for Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company.

Steven D. Urgo, Esq., Louis B. Kupperman, Esq., Obermayer, Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, L.L.P.; James C. Sargent, Jr., Esq., Lamb McErlane, P.C., Philadelphia, for Penn’s Market I, L.P., et al.

*467BEFORE: CASTILLE, C.J., and SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD and MCCAFFERY, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is dismissed as having been IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.