alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXAS NO. WR-83,255-01
EX P ARTE JAMES ERIC GRANT, Appl icant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. F R 67168-A IN THE 264TH DIST RICT COURT

F ROM BELL COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of a controlled substanc e and se ntence d to eighteen year s’ imprisonment. The Third Court of Appea ls dismiss ed Applica

nt’s direc t appea l beca

use notice of

appea l was not timely

filed. Grant v. State , No. 03-14-00447- CR (Tex. App.—Austi n Oct. 31, 2014) (not designated f or publication). Applicant contends that he was denied his right to appeal through no fault of his own, and he asks for a late appea l. Counsel filed an aff idavit with the trial court. Ba sed on that aff idavit and2

the trial court’s rec ords, the trial court h as enter ed finding s of fac t and conclusions of law and
rec ommends that relief

be grante d. Ex parte Riley , 193 S.W .3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The finding s and re commendation ar e supported by the habe as re cord. Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appea l of the judgme nt of conviction in Cause 67168 from the 264th Di s tri ct Court of Be ll County
. Applicant is order ed returne d to that time at which he may g ive a written notice of appea l so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaning ful appea l. Within ten day s of the issuance of this opinion, the trial court shall deter

mine whether Ap p l i ca nt is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall immediately appoint an attorney to repr esent Applicant
on direc t appea l. All time limit s shall be calc ulated as if the sentenc e had been imposed on the date
on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Appli cant desire to prosec ute an appea l, he mus t take affirma tive steps to file a wri tten notice of appea l in the trial court within 30 day s after the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of this opinion s h all be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal Justice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: June 24, 2015 Do not publish
RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute

TO: Shaun Ragnauth, U.S. EPA 

FROM: Brooks Depro 

DATE: May 11, 2010

SUBJECT: Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting: Technical Corrections, Clarifying and 

Other Amendments Economic Impacts Memo

On October 30, 2009, EPA promulgated the final rule titled: Mandatory Greenhouse Gas 

Reporting (74 FR 56259), under the authority of Sections 114 and 208 of the Clean Air Act. The 

final rule requires reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other relevant information 

from certain sources beginning with the 2010 calendar year. 

Following promulgation of the rule, the Administrator has identified a number of technical issues 

that need to be corrected and specific portions of the rule that need to be clarified. EPA is 

proposing to amend specific provisions in the greenhouse gas reporting rule to correct technical 

and editorial errors that have been identified since promulgation and to propose amendments to 

address certain provisions that have been the subject of questions from reporting entities. 

Additional details describing the technical corrections can be found in the preamble and 

technical support documents. 

After review of the technical corrections and consultation with technical experts who developed 

the original cost and economic analysis, EPA has determined that the proposed rule amendments 

will not impose any new requirements that are not currently required by the rules promulgated on 

October 30, 2009 (i.e., calculating and reporting annual GHG emissions) or alter the cost 

estimates contained in the original analyses. As a result, the original national cost estimates 

remain $132.0 million in the First Year and $89.1 million in subsequent years. 

Table 1. Summary of Cost Changes Associated with the Proposed Notice of 

Reconsideration (million, 2006$) 

Variable First Year Subsequent Year 

National Cost Estimate 

(Private and Public) $132.0 $89.1 

Proposed Technical 

Corrections $0 $0 

Revised National Cost 

Estimate $132.0 $89.1
#### CHRISTOPHER B. KENNEDY *v.*LEANNA L. KENNEDY

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 83 Conn. App. 106 (AC 24017), is denied.

*916Decided July 16, 2004

*Christopher B. Kennedy,*pro se, in support of the petition.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                          80,163
<SECURITIES>                                    84,235
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,897
<ALLOWANCES>                                       135
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               172,443
<PP&E>                                          73,168
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,896
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 283,359
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,985
<BONDS>                                        266,721
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,796)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   283,359
<SALES>                                          8,262    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,262
<CGS>                                            5,696
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,597
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (17,764)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (8,830)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (17,764)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (17,764)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
### SUBCHAPTER III—PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Sec.
461.
Management rights.
462.
Financial assistance to certain employees in acquisition of critical skills.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

**2001**—Pub. L. 107–108, title V, §504(b), Dec. 28, 2001, 115 Stat. 1406, added item 462.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         812,999
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  333,589
<ALLOWANCES>                                    46,000
<INVENTORY>                                  6,402,794
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,030,632
<PP&E>                                         537,927
<DEPRECIATION>                                 169,636
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,652,369
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,606,347
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        3,257,324
<PREFERRED>                                  8,000,000
<COMMON>                                         1,883
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,213,185)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,652,369
<SALES>                                         72,645
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                72,645
<CGS>                                           70,210
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,210
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,651,597
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,621,965)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,621,965)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,621,965)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.15)


</TABLE>
### **CHAPTER 222—INDEPENDENT COST ESTIMATION AND COST ANALYSIS**

Sec. 1

3221.
Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation.
3222.
Independent cost estimate required before approval.
3223.
Director: review of cost estimates, cost analyses, and records of the military departments and Defense Agencies.
3224.
Director: participation, concurrence, and approval in cost estimation.
3225.
Discussion of risk in cost estimates.
3226.
Estimates for program baseline and analyses and targets for contract negotiation purposes.
3227.
Guidelines and collection method for acquisition of cost data.

1  Editorially supplied.
# **EXHIBIT32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONOF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned officer of The Doe Run Resources Corporation (the ‘‘Company’’),does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

(a) The quarterlyreport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 31, 2006, of the Company asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Form10-Q”), fully complies with the

requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(b)  The information contained in the Form 10-Qfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

Date: September 14, 2006

 
| By:                           | /s/ David A. Chaput |   |
|-------------------------------|---------------------|--------|
| David A. Chaput               |
| Chief Financial Officer       |
| (Principal Financial Officer) |

 

----
#### Mary E. Mullin, as Administratrix, etc., of John P. Mullin, Deceased, Respondent, v. Patrick Nolan, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Present — Woodward, Jenks," Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : Photos

slide show module

USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) Sailors conduct flight deck operations

USS Abraham Lincoln, USNS Pecos conducts RAS in the Pacific Ocean

MARFORPAC, Malaysia Army integrate for urban operations training during Tiger Strike 24

US, Malaysia joint service members conduct opening ceremony for Tiger Strike 2024

USS Ronald Reagan conducts routine flight operations in the Philippine Sea

MARFORPAC, Malaysia Army conduct key leader engagement in preparation for Tiger Strike 2024

USS Somerset conducts nighttime flight operations in the South China Sea

USS Theodore Roosevelt conducts routine flight operations in the South China Sea

MARFORPAC, Philippine Marine Corps conduct survivability training during Archipelagic Coastal Defense Continuum

PACAF B-1B Lancer arrives at Andersen Air Force Base for Bomber Task Force mission in the Indo Pacific
§ 162.584 What is the approval process for a leasehold mortgage of a WSR lease? ( a ) When we receive a leasehold mortgage that meets the requirements of this subpart, we will notify the parties of the date we receive it. We have 20 days from receipt of the executed leasehold mortgage, proof of required consents, and required documentation to approve or disapprove the leasehold mortgage. Our determination whether to approve the leasehold mortgage will be in writing and will state the basis for our approval or disapproval.
( b ) If we do not meet the deadline in this section, the lessee may take appropriate action under § 162.588.
Sam Azad 

City Manager 

Mark Lovin 

Director of Aviation 

April28, 2015 

Mr. Kevin Schlemmer 

~ ciiy of 

jPUEB~Q DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION 

Chief, Essential Air Service & Domestic Analysis Division, X-53 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Schlemmer; 

Pueblo Memorial Airport 

31201 Bryan Circle, Ste. 200 

Pueblo, CO 81 00 I 

Phone (719) 553-2760 

Fax (719) 553-2761 

Thank you for your response to our offer of 2.5%, $44,411, for service years 2015-2016, Docket 

DOT -OST -1999-6589, for Great Lakes Airlines to provide essential air service at Pueblo 

Memorial Airport, and in compliance with provisions of the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) Modernization and Reform Act of 20 12" (Public Law No. 112-95), 

In response to the counter offer, the City of Pueblo is prepared to contribute to the awarded 

airline subsidy 5% ofthe requested $1,776,448 assistance, or $88,822 for service years 2015-

2016. . 

s~·~:erey/\ ~~~ ;~ ~~ 

S Azad 

City Manager 

City of Pueblo 

--· 

! .• 

•.J 

~) 

i'· \-i ._. -. -~~- : ~: -.-, _,. ___ } 

:?·;~~- ~ ,----·~1 

I • ·---P"-

~~~~)~ .:_-__:. ~ .- .. -~ 

- · ... -- : ~ 

- . 

- . 

- .
## SERVED: February 4, 2014
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF

THOMAS BRAY 

### FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA 2013- 0621
NOTICE OF TENTATIVE HEARING DATES 

### No courtrooms are available the week ofMarch 10 through 14, 2014, in Phoenix, AZ. The earliest this case will be scheduled is May/June 2014.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List



# ...............**----------------------~**

### SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration ' 800 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000 1 

### ONE COPY LisaJ. Toscano, Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel,AWP-7 Western-Pacific Region Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7110**F~:** 310-725-6816 Thomas H. Bray, Respondent 30382 U.S. Highway 60-89, #11 Wickenburg, AZ 85390 TEL: 901-226-0142 E-MAIL: multigrainscpt@msn.com The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121' StaffAssistant F**~:** 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0621 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

### 2
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6202** 

BOBBY HAZEL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, United States Bureau of Prisons; JOE DRIVER; CAPTAIN BOYLES, Administrator; JORGES VAZQUEZ, Doct or , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Elkins

. Robert E. Maxwell , Senior District Judge. ( 2:09

- cv
- 00070

- REM )

Submitted : May 20, 2010 Decided : May 28, 2010

Be fore WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Bobby Hazel, Appellant Pro Se. Rita R. Valdrini, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are no t binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Bobby Hazel appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau o f Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Hazel v. Lappin , No. 2:09

- cv
- 00070

- REM (N.D.W. Va.
Jan. 6, 2010). We deny Hazel’s motio n for a stay. 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
#### § 213.39 Stipulations.

The lessee under any lease heretofore approved may by stipulation (Form 5-154i) with the consent of the lessor and the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, make such approved lease subject to all the terms, conditions, and provisions contained in the lease form and regulations currently in use. Stipulations shall be filed with the Area Director within 20 days after the date of execution.
# C_2013378EN.01001801.xml

| 24.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/18

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty)

2013/C 378/07

| Date of adoption of the decision | 4.11.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | SA.36895 (13/N) |
| Member State | Slovenia |
| Region | Slovenia | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Pomoč za izgube zaradi neugodnih vremenskih razmer – suša 2012 |
| Legal basis | Program odprave posledic škode v kmetijstvu zaradi suše leta 2012 (Sklep Vlade RS, št. 84400-1/2013/4, sprejet na 4. seji, z dne 11.4.2013). |
| Type of measure | Scheme | — |
| Objective | Compensation of damages caused by natural disaster, Natural disasters or exceptional occurrences |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | | Overall budget: EUR 0,3 million |

Date of adoption of the decision

4.11.2013

Reference number of State Aid

SA.36895 (13/N)

Member State

Slovenia

Region

Slovenia

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Pomoč za izgube zaradi neugodnih vremenskih razmer – suša 2012

Legal basis

Program odprave posledic škode v kmetijstvu zaradi suše leta 2012 (Sklep Vlade RS, št. 84400-1/2013/4, sprejet na 4. seji, z dne 11.4.2013).

Type of measure

Scheme

—

Objective

Compensation of damages caused by natural disaster, Natural disasters or exceptional occurrences

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

Overall budget: EUR 0,3 million

| | Annual budget: EUR 0,3 million |
| --- | --- |

Annual budget: EUR 0,3 million

Intensity

45 %

Duration (period)

Until 31.12.2015

Economic sectors

Crop and animal production, hunting and related service activities

Name and address of the granting authority

| Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo in okolje |
| --- |
| Dunajska cesta 22 |
| SI-1000 Ljubljana |
| SLOVENIJA |

Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo in okolje

Dunajska cesta 22

SI-1000 Ljubljana

SLOVENIJA

Other information

—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
§ 162.248 What will BIA do if rent payments are not made in the time and manner required by an agricultural lease? ( a ) A tenant's failure to pay rent in the time and manner required by an agricultural lease will be a violation of the lease, and a notice of violation will be issued under § 162.251 of this subpart. If the lease requires that rent payments be made to us, we will send the tenant and its sureties a notice of violation within five business days of the date on which the rent payment was due. If the lease provides for payment directly to the Indian landowners, we will send the tenant and its sureties a notice of violation within five business days of the date on which we receive actual notice of non-payment from the landowners.
( b ) If a tenant fails to provide adequate proof of payment or cure the violation within the requisite time period described in § 162.251(b) of this subpart, and the amount due is not in dispute, we may immediately take action to recover the amount of the unpaid rent and any associated interest charges or late payment penalties. We may also cancel the lease under § 162.252 of this subpart, or invoke any other remedies available under the lease or applicable law, including collection on any available bond or referral of the debt to the Department of the Treasury for collection. An action to recover any unpaid amounts will not be conditioned on the prior cancellation of the lease or any further notice to the tenant, nor will such an action be precluded by a prior cancellation.
( c ) Partial payments may be accepted by the Indian landowners or us, but acceptance will not operate as a waiver with respect to any amounts remaining unpaid or any other existing lease violations. Unless otherwise provided in the lease, overpayments may be credited as an advance against future rent payments, or refunded.
( d ) If a personal or business check is dishonored, and a rent payment is therefore not made by the due date, the failure to make the payment in a timely manner will be a violation of the lease, and a notice of violation will be issued under § 162.251 of this subpart. Any payment made to cure such a violation, and any future payments by the same tenant, must be made by one of the alternative payment methods listed in § 162.227(b) of this subpart.
#### Frank Poel and Others, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name of Poel & Arnold, Respondents, v. Julio C. Arana and Others, Copartners, Doing Business under the Firm Name of Arana, Bergmann & Company, Appellants.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ. . "