alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §460lll–26. Cooperative authorities and gifts

#### (a) Fish and Wildlife Service

#### (1) Management

#### (A) In general

Subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe, the Secretary may issue a special use authorization to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for the management by the Service of facilities and land agreed on by the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior.

#### (B) Fees

#### (i) In general

Reasonable admission and use fees may be charged for all areas administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

#### (ii) Deposit

The fees shall be deposited in accordance with section 460lll–24 of this title.

#### (2) Cooperation

The Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior may cooperate or act jointly on activities such as population monitoring and inventory of fish and wildlife with emphasis on migratory birds and endangered and threatened species, environmental education, visitor services, conservation demonstration projects and scientific research.

#### (3) Subordination of fish and wildlife activities to overall management

The management and use of areas and facilities under permit to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as authorized pursuant to this section shall be subordinate to the overall management of the Recreation Area as directed by the Secretary.

#### (b) Authorities

For the management, maintenance, operation, and interpretation of the Recreation Area and its facilities, the Secretary may—

(1) make grants and enter into contracts and cooperative agreements with Federal agencies, governmental units, nonprofit organizations, corporations, and individuals; and

(2) accept gifts under section 2269 of title 7 notwithstanding that the donor conducts business with any agency of the Department of Agriculture or is regulated by the Secretary of Agriculture.

#### (c) Memoranda of understanding

The Secretary may, for purposes of carrying out this subchapter—

(1) enter into memoranda of understanding with State or local government entities, including law enforcement, as appropriate, to clarify jurisdictional matters, such as road management, policing, and other functions that are typically performed by the entity on non-Federal land; and

(2) make available on a public website of the Department of Agriculture any memoranda of understanding entered into under paragraph (1).

(Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, §101(e) [title V, §526], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–231, 2681–316; Pub. L. 117–328, div. DD, title II, §201(f), Dec. 29, 2022, 136 Stat. 5583.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This subchapter, referred to in subsec. (c), was in the original "this Act" and was translated as reading "this title", meaning section 101(e) [title V] of div. A of Pub. L. 105–277, known as The Land Between the Lakes Protection Act of 1998, which is classified generally to this subchapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 460lll of this title and Tables.

#### Amendments

2022—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 117–328 added subsec. (c).
Abatement Order filed December 10 , 2015.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00751

- CR

____________ EX PARTE DANIEL MARK NUGENT , Appellant

On Appeal from the Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 10

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2043118



### ABATEMENT ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due September 15, 2015

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The record was not filed. On October 1, 2015, this court ordered the court reporter to file the record within 10 days. When the court reporter failed to file the record as ordered, on November 3, 2015
, this court ordered the court reporter to file the record within 10 days, and instructed the c ourt reporter that if the record was not filed, the court would order the trial court to conduct a hearing
to determine the reason for the court reporter’s failure to file the record. The
record has not been filed with the court.The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the

appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely as ordered, we issue the following order. We direct the judge of the Co unty Crim i nal C our t at Law No

. 10 to conduct a hearing at which the court reporter, appellant’s counsel, and appellee’s counsel shall participate (a) to determine the reason for the court reporter’s failure to file the record; (b) to establish a date certain when th e reporter’s record will be filed, and (c) to make findings as to whether the court reporter should be held in contempt of court for failing to file the reporter’s record timely as ordered. We order the court to prepare a record, in the form of a reporter ’s record, of the hearing. The judge shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shall order the trial clerk to forward to this court a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings and conclusions. The hearing record and supplemental

c lerk’s record shall be filed with the clerk of this court within 30 days of the date
of this order.
The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this court. The court will
also cons ider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion. If the court reporter files the
record before the date set for the hearing, the appeal will be reinstated and the trial

cour t need not hold a hearing.

PER CURIAM
### §§450gg to 450gg–3. Repealed. Pub. L. 91–660, §5, Jan. 8, 1971, 84 Stat. 1969

Sections, act July 2, 1948, ch. 806, §§1–4, 62 Stat. 1220, provided for establishment of the Pensacola National Monument, maintenance of a museum for relics and records of Pensacola and its harbor defenses, and the transfer of title to the land and jurisdiction of the area to the State of Florida, upon determination by Secretary of the Interior that the area would be more suitably administered as a State historical park.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20829

Summary Calendar

 

ISAAC MANUEL ALVARADO,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CV-2958

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

April 9, 2002

Before Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Isaac Manuel Alvarado, Texas prisoner #825846, has moved

this court for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to appeal

the summary-judgment denial of his federal habeas corpus

application filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In his petition

Alvarado argued that (1) his plea was rendered involuntary by

counsel’s promise of a 10-year sentence; (2) counsel labored
No. 01-20829

-2-

under a conflict of interest because counsel acted as his

interpreter during the guilty-plea proceedings; (3) counsel used

fraud and extortion to force him to plead guilty; and (4) counsel

failed to conduct any pretrial investigation. He also complained

of infirmaries in his state habeas proceedings.

A COA motion may be granted only if the petitioner makes a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This requires the petitioner to

demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district

court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or

wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000).

Alvarado has shown that reasonable jurists would find the

district court’s assessment of his claim that his plea was

rendered involuntary by counsel’s promise of a 10-year sentence

to be debatable or wrong. The district court, in rejecting this

claim, improperly afforded the state habeas court’s findings a

presumption of correctness. The state-court findings should not

have been afforded a presumption of correctness as the state

court’s factual findings were based on a paper record, rather

than a live evidentiary hearing, there were conflicting

affidavits, and the trial court judge in the state habeas action

was not the same judge who presided over Alvarado’s guilty-plea

hearing. See Nethery v. Collins, 993 F.2d 1154, 1157 n.8 (5th

Cir. 1993). 
No. 01-20829

-3-

We also conclude that the affidavit of Jose Antonio Villalta

raised a genuine issue of material fact with regard to whether

counsel had promised Alvarado a specific sentence, thus

precluding the grant of summary judgment on this issue. See FED.

R. CIV. P. 56(e). Accordingly, the district court’s order is

VACATED and the case REMANDED to the district court to conduct an

evidentiary hearing on this issue. COA is denied as to all

remaining issues.
### §426p. Authorization of appropriations

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of sections 426n to 426p of this title.

(Pub. L. 100–205, §4, formerly §3, Dec. 23, 1987, 101 Stat. 1433; renumbered §4, Pub. L. 102–225, §1(4), Dec. 11, 1991, 105 Stat. 1683.)
(No. 83-CC-159

#### Gomric & Kurowski, P.C., Claimant, *v.*The State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed December 15, 1982.*

Kevin Boyner, for Claimant.

Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General (William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

*877Poch, J.

The record in this cause indicated the purpose of the expenditure by the Department of Children & Family Services for which this claim was filed was for attorney fees for the termination of parental rights in an adoption case, and that the Attorney General has submitted a stipulation by Respondent based upon information forwarded to his office by said Department, as evidenced by the departmental report attached to the stipulation by Respondent.

Accordingly, this Court finds that this was a properly authorized expenditure at prices reasonable, usual and customary in the area where received. No part of this expenditure has been paid and the total outstanding is $327.00. Money was appropriated under appropriation and fund No. 001-41817-4400-05-00 of which appropriation sufficient funds for the payment of this obligation lapsed and were returned to the State Treasury.

The sole reason said claim was not paid is due to the lapse of the appropriation for the period during which the debt was incurred.

It is hereby ordered that the Claimant be awarded, in full satisfaction of any and all claims presented to the State of Illinois under the above captioned cause, the sum of three hundred twenty-seven and 00/100 ($327.00) dollars.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 1165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-70]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than January 21, 2011.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (A. Linwood Gill, III, Vice 
President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528:
    1. Mehrdad Elie, Redwood City, California; to acquire voting 
securities of HarVest BanCorp, Gaithersburg, Maryland, and thereby 
indirectly acquire voting shares of HarVest Bank of Maryland, 
Rockville, Maryland.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacqueline G. King, 
Community Affairs Officer) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 
55480-0291:
    1. Russell James Gesell, individually and as co-trustee of The 
Charles R. Gesell Irrevocable Trust, and The Peter J. Gesell 
Irrevocable Trust, all in Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Russell James 
Gesell, Rene J. Gesell, The Charles R. Gesell Irrevocable Trust and The 
Peter J. Gesell Irrevocable Trust as part of The Gesell Family Group; 
to retain voting shares of Cherokee Bancshares, Inc., and thereby 
indirectly retain control of BankCherokee, both in Saint Paul, 
Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, January 3, 
2011.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2011-70 Filed 1-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 4.4


                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST

                                       of

                              AMCV CAPITAL TRUST I


                  The  undersigned,  being the trustees of AMCV Capital Trust I
(the "Trust"),  desiring to form a business trust under the Delaware Business
Trust Act (12 Del. C.ss.3801 et seq.) hereby certify as follows:

                  1. The name of the business trust being formed hereby is
"AMCV Capital Trust I".

                  2. The name and business address of the trustee of the Trust
with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware is The Bank of New
York (Delaware), White Clay Center - Route 272, Newark, Delaware 19711.

                  3. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon the
filing of this Certificate of Trust.


                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Certificate of Trust as of the 12th day of January, 2000.


                                 The Bank of New York (Delaware), as Trustee

                                 By: /s/ Mary Jane Morrissey
                                     ------------------------------
                                     Name: Mary Jane Morrissey
                                     Title:  Authorized Signatory


                                 /s/ Randall L.Talcot
                                 ----------------------------------
                                 Randall L. Talcott, as Trustee
**Important legal notice**

*|*

# 32005M3840

**Commission Decision of 30/06/2005 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.3840 - CVC / CORTEFIEL) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the English text is authentic)****

| |Brussels, 30/06/2005

SG-Greffe(2005) D/202873

To the notifying parties

Dear Sirs,

Subject : Case No. COMP/M.3840-CVC/Cortefiel Notification of 31.05.2005 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [1] Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No. C 138, 07.06.2005, page 12.

1. On 31/05/2005, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertaking Coral Retail Industries, S.L., controlled by CVC Capital Partners Group Sàrl (“CVC”, Luxembourg) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Cortefiel, S.A. (“Cortefiel”, Spain) by way of public bid announced on 12/05/2005.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are :

- for CVC : investment fund

- for Cortefiel : manufacture and retail distribution of clothing and related merchandise, retail distribution of cosmetics.

3. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 and of paragraph 5, subparagraph c of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004[2].

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004.

For the Commission

signed Neelie KROES Member of the Commission

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1

[2] OJ C 56, 05.3.2005 p.32

MERGER PROCEDURE

ARTICLE 6(1)(b) DECISION

SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE

PUBLIC VERSION
§ 515.1 Purpose. The purpose of this part is to: ( a ) Establish the processes that a State transportation department (State DOT) must use to develop its asset management plan, as required under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(8);
( b ) Establish the minimum requirements that apply to the development of an asset management plan;
( c ) Describe the penalties for a State DOT's failure to develop and implement an asset management plan in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part;
( d ) Set forth the minimum standards for a State DOT to use in developing and operating highway bridge and pavement management systems under 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(i).
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-60447 Summary Calendar

MATTIE B. POLK; TERRENCE POLK; MERLINDA POLK, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus ANTHONY FARESE, Attorney at Law; MARY JANE LEMON, Special Assistant Attorney General, State of Mississippi; STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:96-CV-131 SAA

- - - - - - - - - - May 13, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mattie B. Polk and her son and daughter-in-law Terrence and Merlinda Polk (“the Polks”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in their civil rights action, filed pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Polks sued private attorney Anthony Farese, Assistant Attorney General Mary Jane Lemon, and the State of Mississippi, alleging that the defendants had violated their constitutional rights in takingNo. 97-60447 -2- various property in a civil forfeiture proceeding. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de

novo . Guillory v. Domtar Industries, Inc. , 95 F.3d 1320, 1326 (5th Cir. 1996). For the same reasons given by the magistrate judge, the defendant Lemon is entitled summary judgment based upon absolute prosecutorial immunity and qualified immunity. See Polk v. Farese , No. 3:96-CV-131-A (N.D. Miss. June 10, 1997); Imbler v. Pachtman , 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976); Alexander v. Ieyoub , No. 92-4278 (5th Cir. July 2, 1993) (slip op.); Harlow v. Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800, 819 (1982). Also for the reasons given by the magistrate judge, private attorney Farese is entitled to summary judgment because the Polks failed to demonstrate that he acted under “color of state law.”
See Polk , supra ; Leffall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist. , 28 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir. 1994). The magistrate judge correctly determined that the State of Mississippi was entitled to absolute immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. , 506 U.S. 139, 144 (1993). The magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to enter a default judgment against defendants Lemon and the State. See Ganther v. Ingle , 75 F.3d 207, 212 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.
4/8/13 Indexof /EmisInventory/2007v5

ftp://ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/2007v5 1/1

Index of /EmisInventory/2007v5

Name Size Date Modified

[parent directory]

2007emis/ 4/8/13 11:59:00 AM

2007platform_county_sector_emissions_2007re_2020re.zip 1.1 MB 3/19/13 4:34:00 PM

2007platform_state_sector_summaries_30nov12_rev.xlsx 183 kB 12/13/12 12:52:00 PM

2020re/ 12/13/12 11:32:00 AM

2020re_ctl2/ 4/8/13 11:59:00 AM

README_pm_naaqs_2007ee_2007re_2020re.txt 15.6 kB 12/5/12 1:08:00 PM

agg_12km_to_36km.py 7.9 kB 2/19/13 5:03:00 PM

ge_dat_2007v5.tar.gz 1.3 GB 12/5/12 1:08:00 PM

ge_dat_2007v5_contents.txt 98.2 kB 12/5/12 1:08:00 PM

smoke_helper_scripts.tar.gz 3.5 MB 12/5/12 1:08:00 PM
### §410cc–23. Agreements and technical assistance

#### (a) Interpretative exhibits or programs

The Secretary may enter into agreements with any owner of property with national historic or cultural significance within the park to provide for interpretive exhibits or programs. Such agreements shall provide, whenever appropriate, that—

(1) the public may have access to such property at specified, reasonable times for purposes of viewing such property or the exhibits or attending the programs established by the Secretary under this subsection; and

(2) the Secretary may make such minor improvements to such property as the Secretary deems necessary to enhance the public use and enjoyment of such property, exhibits, and programs.

#### (b) Request for assistance

(1) The Secretary shall provide, upon request, technical assistance to—

(A) the city of Lowell to assist the city in establishing regulations or laws consistent with the standards and criteria established pursuant to section 410cc–32(e) of this title; and

(B) the Commission to assist the Commission in establishing the index and the standards and criteria required by section 410cc–32 of this title.

(2) The Secretary may provide to any owner of property within the park or preservation district, the Commission, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the city of Lowell, and any other Federal entity or any institution such technical assistance as the Secretary considers appropriate to carry out the purpose of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 95–290, title II, §203, June 5, 1978, 92 Stat. 294.)