alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued July 1, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00340-CR

———————————

DARRELL FRANKLIN CLAY, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 208th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1341793

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Darrell Franklin Clay, Jr., pleaded guilty to the felony offense of 

aggravated assault.1 The trial court found appellant guilty and, in accordance with 

the terms of appellant’s plea bargain agreement with the State, sentenced appellant 

 

1

See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(a)(2) (West 2011).
2

to three years’ confinement. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss 

the appeal.

In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were 

raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial 

court’s permission to appeal. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 

2006); TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed if a certification

showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the 

record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

Here, the trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id. 

The trial court’s certification states that this is a plea bargain case and that the 

defendant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record 

supports the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must 

dismiss this appeal. See Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App.

2006) (“A court of appeals, while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an 

appellant who plea-bargained is permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must 

dismiss a prohibited appeal without further action, regardless of the basis for the 

appeal.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. We dismiss any 

pending motions as moot.
3

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Sharp, and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
### §1848a. Repealed. Pub. L. 111–203, title VI, §604(c)(2), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1601

Section, act May 9, 1956, ch. 240, §10A, as added Pub. L. 106–102, title I, §113, Nov. 12, 1999, 113 Stat. 1368, related to limitation on rulemaking, prudential, supervisory, and enforcement authority of the Board.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective on the transfer date, see section 604(j) of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as an Effective Date of 2010 Amendment note under section 1462 of this title.
-  Home 
-  About 
-  Working with PHMSA 

# In This Section

                      -  Working with PHMSA 
                      -  PHMSA Business Opportunities 
                      -  Commercial Services Management Program 
                      -  Government Purchase Card 
                      -  Grants 
                      -  State Programs 
                      -  Small Business 
                      -  Fraud Alert 
                      -  Contact Us 

## Related Links

                  -                                          GSA Smart Pay 2                   
                  -                                          List of PHMSA Purchase Card Holders                   

## Contact Us

Acquisition Services
U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Email:**PHMSA.Acquisitions@dot.gov**Business Hours:**9:00am-5:00pm ET, M-F

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# Government Purchase Card

PHMSA's Acquisition Services Division manages and administers the agency's Purchase Card Program.  U.S. Bank is the current service providing bank for PHMSA and all DOT purchase card programs.

PHMSA uses the Government Purchase Card, to the maximum extent practicable, to acquire goods and services valued below the micro purchase threshold ($3,500).

## Strategic Sourcing

Strategic Sourcing has been defined as the collaborative and structured process of analyzing an organization's spending and using the information to make business decisions about acquisition commodities and services more effectively and efficiently.

At U.S. DOT, and PHMSA, we are continuously looking for opportunities for establishing Strategic Sourcing agreements. Currently, office supplies are procured through GSA's Second Generation FSSI Office Supply BPAs.

## Point of Contact

Dwayne Crossphmsa-govtpurchasecard@dot.gov(202)366-4429
### §1772e. Data standards

#### (a) Requirement

The Board shall, by rule, adopt data standards for all collections of information and reports regularly filed with or submitted to the Administration under this chapter.

#### (b) Consistency

The data standards required under subsection (a) shall incorporate, and ensure compatibility with (to the extent feasible), all applicable data standards established in the rules promulgated under section 5334 of this title, including, to the extent practicable, by having the characteristics described in clauses (i) through (vi) of subsection (c)(1)(B) of such section 5334.

(June 26, 1934, ch. 750, title I, §132, as added Pub. L. 117–263, div. E, title LVIII, §5871, Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 3436.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Rulemaking

Pub. L. 117–263, div. E, title LVIII, §5873, Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 3436, provided that:

"(a) In General.—The National Credit Union Administration Board shall issue rules to carry out the amendments made by this subtitle [subtitle G (§§5871–5874) of title LVIII of div. E of Pub. L. 117–263, enacting this section and section 1772f of this title], which shall take effect not later than 2 years after the date on which final rules are promulgated under section 124(b)(2) of the Financial Stability Act of 2010 [12 U.S.C. 5334(b)(2)], as added by section 5811(a) of this title.

"(b) Scaling of Regulatory Requirements; Minimizing Disruption.—In issuing the rules required under subsection (a), the National Credit Union Administration Board—

"(1) may scale data reporting requirements in order to reduce any unjustified burden on smaller regulated entities; and

"(2) shall seek to minimize disruptive changes to the persons affected by those regulations."

#### Rule of Construction Regarding No New Disclosure Requirements

Pub. L. 117–263, div. E, title LVIII, §5874, Dec. 23, 2022, 136 Stat. 3437, provided that: "Nothing in this subtitle [subtitle G (§§5871–5874) of title LVIII of div. E of Pub. L. 117–263, enacting this section, section 1772f of this title, and provisions set out as a note under this section], or the amendments made by this subtitle, shall be construed to require the National Credit Union Administration Board to collect or make publicly available additional information under the Federal Credit Union Act (12 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.), beyond information that was collected or made publicly available under that Act, as of the day before the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 23, 2022]."
# C_2006159EN.01008901.xml

| 8.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 159/89 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/89

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4254 — Nordic Capital Fund VI/Dangaard)

(2006/C 159/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 3 July 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes. |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes.

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4254. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4254. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
§ 584.2 Who may appeal? ( a ) Appeals of notices of violation, proposed civil fine assessments, orders of temporary closure, proposals to remove certificates of self-regulation, and late fee notifications and assessments may only be brought by the tribe or the recipient of the action that is the subject of the appeal.
( b ) Appeals of the Chair's decisions to void or modify a management contract after approval may only be brought by a party to the management contract.
( c ) Appeals of the Chair's decisions to approve or object to the adoption of alternate standards from those required by the Commission's minimum internal control standards and/or technical standards may only be brought by the tribal gaming regulatory authority that approved the alternate standards for the gaming operation(s).
[77 FR 58945, Sept. 25, 2012, as amended at 78 FR 21062, Apr. 9, 2013]
#### § 226.40 Use of gas for lifting oil.

Lessee shall not use natural gas from a distinct or separate stratum for the purpose of flowing or lifting the oil, except where said Lessee has an approved right to both the oil and the gas, and then only with the approval of the Superintendent of such use and of the manner of its use.
#### § 1002.1 Purpose and scope.

The regulations in this part implement the provisions of the Privacy Act.
# C_2006281EN.01004202.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/42

---

Action brought on 9 October 2006– Sun Chemical Group and others v Commission

(Case T-282/06)

(2006/C 281/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Sun Chemical Group BV (Weesp, The Netherlands), Siegwerk Druckfarben AG (Siegburg, Germany), Flint Group Germany GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by: N. Dodoo, lawyer)

Applicants:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of Commission Decision COMP/M.4071 — Apollo/Akzo Nobel IAR of 29 May 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of Commission Decision COMP/M.4071 — Apollo/Akzo Nobel IAR of 29 May 2006;

| — | order the Commission to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application at stake is made pursuant to Article 230 EC for the annulment of Commission Decision COMP/M.4071— Apollo/Akzo Nobel IAR of 29 May 2006, declaring a notified concentration compatible with the common market.

The applicants claim that the Commission cleared the concentration unconditionally, without affording it the careful, detailed and consistent review that it warranted, considering the serious competition concerns it allegedly raised. According to the applicants, a review of the decision, an assessment of the applicants' respective responses to the Commission's market investigation, and an examination of the salient features of the industry demonstrate that the Commission failed to consider or, where it purports to do so, ignored evidence that was vital for a complete and accurate assessment of the notified concentration.

Moreover, the applicants submit that the Commission has not merely ignored its own guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers (1), but also the complaints expressed and the evidence supplied by them. In fact, the Commission apparently relied in several respects, solely on information provided by the merging parties without verifying its accuracy, resulting in a decision tainted with errors of law, fact and appreciation.

1

Considering the circumstances outlined above, the Commission should have provided, as the applicants maintain, motivated reasoning for clearing the notified operation. Having failed to do so entails a violation of its duty to state reasons and thus of Article 253 EC.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 C 31, p. 5-18

1

---
# C_2007039EN.01000502.xml

| 23.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4526 — PAI/Lafarge)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 39/07)

On 15 February 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4526. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4526. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
### §1734. Amendment, extension, or increase of commitment amounts

At any time prior to final endorsement for insurance, the Secretary, in his discretion, may amend, extend, or increase the amount of any commitment, provided the mortgage, as finally endorsed for insurance is eligible for insurance under the provisions of this chapter and the rules and regulations thereunder, in effect at the time the original commitment to insure was issued.

(June 27, 1934, ch. 847, title V, §515 as added Oct. 25, 1949, ch. 729, §3, 63 Stat. 906; amended Pub. L. 90–19, §1(a)(3), May 25, 1967, 81 Stat. 17; Pub. L. 98–479, title II, §204(a)(20), Oct. 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 2232.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–479 struck out "; mortgage conditions" after "amounts" in section catchline.

1967—Pub. L. 90–19 substituted "Secretary" for "Commissioner".
### §8899. Investigation before issue of certificate

The Secretary of the Navy may not issue a certificate under this chapter until he satisfies himself by investigation that it is necessary.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 485, §7729; renumbered §8899, Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §807(d)(10), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1837.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7729 | 46 U.S.C. 794 (less 1st 10 sentences). | July 3, 1944, ch. 399, §4 (less 1st 10 sentences), 58 Stat. 724. |

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 7729 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
| (logo) plante moran | **Plante & Moran, PLLC**

10 South Riverside Plaza

9th floor

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel: 312.207.1040

Fax: 312.207.1066

plantemoran.com |
|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm

 

 

To the Board of Directors

National Tax Search, LLC

 

We have examined National TaxSearch, LLC’s (the “Company”) compliance with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, set forth inItem 1122(d) of the Security and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB forthe National Tax Search TaxQ system (the “Platform”) as of and forthe year ended December 31, 2016. The Company has determined that only certainservicing criteria, 1122(d)(l)(ii), 1122(d)1(iv), 1122(d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v),1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii), are applicable to theactivities performed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.The Company has determined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth inItem 1122(d) of the SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activitiesperformed by it with respect to the Platform covered by this report.

 

Management is responsible forthe Company's compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility isto express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliancewith the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination wasconducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in thecircumstances. Our examination included a selection of a sample of transactionsand compliance activities related to the Platform during the examination periodand determining whether the Company processed those transactions and performedthose activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Our testing ofselected transactions and compliance activities was limited to calculations,reports, and activities performed by the Company during the period covered bythis report. Our procedures did not include determining whether errors may haveoccurred prior to our tests that may have affected the balances or amountscalculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this reportfor the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that ourexamination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination doesnot provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with theservicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementionedservicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for thePlatform is fairly stated in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ Plante & Moran, PLLC

 

Chicago, IL

January 27, 2017

 

 

(logo) Praxity 

MEMBER

GLOBAL ALLIANCE OF 

INDEPENDENT FIRMS
#### § 700.825 Relationship to section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Issuance of a permit in accordance with the Act and this part does not constitute an undertaking requiring compliance with section 106 of the Act of October 15, 1996 (16 U.S.C. 470f). However, the mere issuance of such a permit does not excuse the Federal Land Manager from compliance with section 106 where otherwise required.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-72 

June 27, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4048 Date of Termination 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your letter of May 15, 1975 concerning the * * * 

According, to the materials in this Corporation's files, * * * closed its * * * plant in June 1974. All employees except

two ceased employment by June 30, 1974. The two exceptions were employed on the first three days in July. All benefit

accruals except for these two employees also ceased by June 30, 1974. The collective bargaining agreement tied * * *

contributions to hours worked and, except with * * * respect to the two employees mentioned above, no contributions

were made for work performed after June 30, 1974. In view of the insubstantial accruals and contributions with respect

to the period subsequent to June 30, 1974, this Corporation has determined that the * * * pension plan in substance

terminated prior to July 1, 1974. Consequently, Section 4082(b) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of

1974 does not authorize this Corporation to guarantee benefits upon termination of the Plan under the Act. 

Accordingly, unless there are additional facts bearing on this matter which you bring to our attention within 30 days

from the date of this letter, we will close our [*2] file on this case. 

Steven E. Schanes 

Acting Executive Director
### [§139c. Repealed. Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title IX, §901(e)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2342]

Section, added §139e and renumbered §139c, Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title VII, §896(a), title IX, §901(f), Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4314, 4322; amended Pub. L. 112–81, div. A, title VIII, §855, Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1521; Pub. L. 112–239, div. A, title IX, §901(a), (b), title X, §1076(a)(13), (b)(3), Jan. 2, 2013, 126 Stat. 1863, 1864, 1948, 1949; Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title X, §1081(b)(4)(A), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2419, related to Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy.

A prior section 139c was renumbered section 139a of this title.

Another prior section 139c was renumbered section 2434 of this title.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Certification of the Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the**

**Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I, Daniel A. Gaudreau, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theQuarterly Report of Actuate Corporation on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Actuate Corporation. 

 

Dated:  August 14, 2003 

 

/S/    DANIEL A. GAUDREAU

----
EXHIBIT 32.1



Section 1350 Certifications



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Actuate Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company and the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge on the date hereof, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                     
|-----------------------------------------------------
|Dated:    August 9, 2004                             
|                                                     
|/s/    PETER I. CITTADINI                            
|Peter I. Cittadini                                   
|President and Chief Executive Officer                
|(Principal Executive Officer)                        
|                                                     
|/s/    DANIEL A. GAUDREAU                            
|Daniel A. Gaudreau                                   
|Senior Vice President, Finance and Administration and
|Chief Financial Officer                              
|(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)