alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXAS NO. WR-81,721-01

EX P ARTE ZAC KERYTERRELL , Appli cant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 67366-A IN THE 149TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM BRAZ ORIA COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas C o d e o f C ri minal 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). A jury convicted Applicant of possession of
coca ine. The trial court found the indictment’s habitual-fe lon enhanc ement true and assessed a fifty

year sentenc e. Applicant contends that he was denied his right to a p p e al th e conviction and sentenc e through
no fault of his own. See Ex parte Axe l , 757 S.W .2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). The trial court conducte d a hearing and appointed habea s counsel. Trial counsel was g iven notice of the hearing but did not appea

r. The State also indicates that it attempted to co n t ac t tri al counsel three times by telephone a

nd left messag es but that he neve r re turned the c alls. The trial judg e notes that the tria l-2-

docket sheet indicates that Applicant expressed a desire to appea l afte r sentenc ing but th at tri al counsel never filed a notice of appea l and never withdrew as counsel for Applicant. With the State’s agree ment, the trial court rec ommends granting a late appea l. The rec ommendation is supported by the habe as re cord f

orwa rded to this Court. Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appea l of the judgme nt of conviction in Cause No. 67366 fro m the 149th District Court of Br azoria County
. Applicant is order ed returned to that time at wh ich he may g ive a written not ice of appea l so that he may then, with the aid of c ounsel, obtain a mea ningf ul appea l. Within ten day s of the issuance of this opinion, the trial court shall deter mine whe ther Applicant 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 appeal. All time limit s shall be calculated as if the s en t ence had been i mposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosec ute an appea l, he must take aff irmative steps to file a written notice of appe al in the trial court within 30 day s afte r the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Depa rtment of Crimin al Justice-Corr ectional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: August 20, 2014 Do not publish
#### § 541.60 Purpose and scope.

In an effort to maintain a safe and orderly environment within its institutions, the Bureau of Prisons may place in controlled housing status an inmate who tests HIV positive when there is reliable evidence that the inmate may engage in conduct posing a health risk to another person.
Case 16-30186-KRH Doc 13 Filed 02/16/16 Entered 02/16/16 15:27:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 11
Case 16-30186-KRH Doc 13 Filed 02/16/16 Entered 02/16/16 15:27:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 11
Case 16-30186-KRH Doc 13 Filed 02/16/16 Entered 02/16/16 15:27:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 11
Case 16-30186-KRH Doc 13 Filed 02/16/16 Entered 02/16/16 15:27:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 11
Case 16-30186-KRH Doc 13 Filed 02/16/16 Entered 02/16/16 15:27:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 11
Case 16-30186-KRH Doc 13 Filed 02/16/16 Entered 02/16/16 15:27:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 11
Case 16-30186-KRH Doc 13 Filed 02/16/16 Entered 02/16/16 15:27:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 11
Case 16-30186-KRH Doc 13 Filed 02/16/16 Entered 02/16/16 15:27:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 11
Case 16-30186-KRH Doc 13 Filed 02/16/16 Entered 02/16/16 15:27:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 11
Case 16-30186-KRH Doc 13 Filed 02/16/16 Entered 02/16/16 15:27:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 10 of 11
Case 16-30186-KRH Doc 13 Filed 02/16/16 Entered 02/16/16 15:27:07 Desc Main

 Document Page 11 of 11
###### Editorial Note on Part 1240

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1240 appear at 68 FR 9846, Feb. 28, 2003, and at 68 FR 10355, Mar. 3, 2003.

#### § 1240.6 Postponement and adjournment of hearing.

After the commencement of the hearing, the immigration judge may grant a reasonable adjournment either at his or her own instance or, for good cause shown, upon application by the respondent or the Department of Homeland Security, provided that nothing in this section shall authorize an adjournment that causes the adjudication of an asylum application to exceed 180 days in the absence of exceptional circumstances, consistent with section 208(d)(5)(A)(iii) of the Act and § 1003.10(b) of this chapter.

[85 FR 81751, Dec. 16, 2020]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Before the

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

Release No. 77980 / June 2, 2016

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING

File No. 3-16398

____________________________________

 :

In the Matter of :

 :

SANDRA DYCHE : SECOND EXTENSION ORDER

:

:

Respondent. :

____________________________________:

The Division of Enforcement (“Division”) has requested an extension of time 

until August 30, 2016 to submit a Proposed Plan of Distribution under Rule 1101(a) of 

the Commission’s Rules on Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans, 17 CFR 201.1101(a).

On February 20, 2015, the Commission issued an Order Instituting 

Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of the 

Securities Act of 1933, Sections 15(b) and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934, and Section 9(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, Making Findings, and 

Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-and-Desist Order (“Order”) against Sandra 

Dyche (“Respondent”).

1

The Order required Respondent to pay disgorgement of 

$1,000,000, prejudgment interest of $164,000 and civil penalties of $250,000 to the 

Commission and created a Fair Fund pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley 

Act of 2002, as amended. 

 

1

Securities Act Rel. No. 9729 (Feb. 20, 2015).
On February 23, 2016, the Commission granted the Division’s request for an 

extension until May 30, 2016 to submit a proposed plan of distribution.2 The Division 

now requests a second extension. In its request for an extension of time, the Division 

states that it requires additional time to finalize the proposed plan of distribution.

Accordingly, for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the 

Division’s request for an extension of time until August 30, 2016 to submit a Proposed 

Plan of Distribution is granted.

For the Commission, by its Secretary, pursuant to delegated authority. 

Brent J. Fields

Secretary

 

2

 Exchange Act Rel. No. 77208 (Feb. 23, 2016).
#### In the Matter of Al Hauser, Appellant, v Town of Webb et al., Respondents.

[824 NYS2d 539]

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order and judgment) of the Supreme Court, Herkimer County (Michael E. Daley, J.), entered July 21, 2005 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition is granted and the matter is remitted to respondent Planning Board of the Town of Webb for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to annul the determination of respondent Planning Board of the Town of Webb (Board) denying his application for a two-lot subdivision of his property and to direct the Board to grant his *1354application. Supreme Court erred in dismissing the petition and confirming the determination. “[A]s long as the Board’s determination has a rational basis supported by substantial evidence, a court should not substitute its judgment for that of the Board when the Board has not abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily” *(Matter of M&M Partnership v Sweenor,*210 AD2d 575, 576-577 [1994]). Here, the Board’s determination denying the application on the ground that the lots created by the proposed subdivision would not be in harmony with the character of the neighborhood lacks a rational basis and is contrary to the evidence *(see Matter of Diamond v Specter,*39 AD2d 942, 943 [1972], *affd*32 NY2d 811 [1973]; *Reed v Planning Bd. of Town of Chester,*120 AD2d 510, 512 [1986]). The evidence establishes that the lots created by the proposed subdivision would comply with the area requirements of the zoning ordinance, and would be larger than 30% of the lots in the neighborhood. Because “the proposed subdivision met the zoning requirements, and there was no evidence of an adverse impact on the community, the Board’s determination was arbitrary and capricious” *(Matter of Pagnozzi v Planning Bd. of Vil. of Piermont,*292 AD2d 613, 614 [2002]; *see Matter of Brucia v Planning Bd. of Town of Huntington,*157 AD2d 657 [1990]). We therefore reverse the judgment, grant the petition and remit the matter to the Board to grant petitioner’s application. Present—Scudder, J.R, Kehoe, Martoche and Green, JJ.
§ 646.109 Types of coverage. ( a ) Coverage shall be limited to damage suffered by the railroad on account of occurrences arising out of the work of the contractor on or about the railroad right-of-way, independent of the railroad's general supervision or control, except as noted in § 646.109(b)(4).
( b ) Coverage shall include: ( 1 ) Death of or bodily injury to passengers of the railroad and employees of the railroad not covered by State workmen's compensation laws;
( 2 ) Personal property owned by or in the care, custody or control of the railroads;
( 3 ) The contractor, or any of his agents or employees who suffer bodily injury or death as the result of acts of the railroad or its agents, regardless of the negligence of the railroad;
( 4 ) Negligence of only the following classes of railroad employees: ( i ) Any supervisory employee of the railroad at the job site;
( ii ) Any employee of the railroad while operating, attached to, or engaged on, work trains or other railroad equipment at the job site which are assigned exclusively to the contractor; or
( iii ) Any employee of the railroad not within (b)(4) (i) or (ii) who is specifically loaned or assigned to the work of the contractor for prevention of accidents or protection of property, the cost of whose services is borne specifically by the contractor or governmental authority.
# Official Journal L 352/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 352 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 645 October 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 352

English edition

Legislation

Volume 645 October 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1754 of 4 October 2021 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1382 amending certain Regulations imposing anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures on certain steel products subject to a safeguard measure | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1754 of 4 October 2021 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1382 amending certain Regulations imposing anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures on certain steel products subject to a safeguard measure

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS 

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 

Issued Pursuant to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Rules of 

Practice 111(b) and 232, 17 C.F.R. §§ 201.111(b), 201.232. 

1. TO: This subpoena requires you to produce documents or other 

tangible evidence described in Item 7, at the request of the 

Party described in Item 4, in the U.S. Securities and Exchange 

Commission Administrative Proceeding described in Item 6. 

2. PLACE OF PRODUCTION 3. DATE AND TIME PRODUCTION IS DUE

May be a date certain or number of days following subpoena's 

issuance.

4. PARTY AND COUNSEL REQUESTING

ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA

5. THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OR OTHER

TANGIBLE EVIDENCE IS ORDERED BY THE

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proceeding is before the Commission; it is not assigned

to an Administrative Law Judge.

6. TITLE OF THE MATTER AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING NUMBER

7. DOCUMENTS OR OTHER TANGIBLE EVIDENCE TO BE PRODUCED (ATTACH PAGES AS REQUIRED)

DATE SIGNED SIGNATORY'S NAME AND SIGNATURE

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 

MOTION TO QUASH

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Rules of Practice 

require that any application to quash or modify a subpoena 

comply with Commission Rule of Practice 232(e)(1), 

17 C.F.R. § 201.232(e)(1).
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 3(I).1


                             ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                        TO THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                            L.A. T SPORTSWEAR, INC.

                                       1.

         The name of the Corporation is L.A. T Sportswear, Inc.

                                       2.

         The Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation shall be amended by
deleting Article I thereof in its entirety and substituting the following in
lieu of Article I:

                                      "I.

         The name of the Corporation is Full Line Distributors, Inc."

                                       3.

         The amendment set forth in Article 2 of these Articles of Amendment
was adopted on January 31, 2000.

                                       4.

         These Articles of Amendment were adopted by action of the
Corporation's Board of Directors. Shareholder approval of these Articles of
Amendment was not required.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused these Articles of
Amendment to be executed by a duly authorized officer of the Corporation, on
this 9th day of February, 2000.



                                          L.A. T SPORTSWEAR, INC.

                                          By:  /s/ Isador Mitzner
                                             ----------------------------------
                                          Name:    Isador Mitzner
                                               --------------------------------
                                          Title:   Chairman
                                                -------------------------------
Exhibit 99



Report of Audit Committee



GREAT NORTHERN IRON ORE PROPERTIES

Report of Audit Committee

Year Ended December 31, 2009



The Audit Committee oversees the Trusts financial reporting process on behalf of the Board of Trustees. Management has the primary responsibility for the financial statements and the reporting process including the systems of internal controls. In fulfilling its oversight responsibilities, the Audit Committee reviewed the audited financial statements in the Annual Report with management including a discussion of the quality, not just the acceptability, of the accounting principles, the reasonableness of significant judgments and the clarity of disclosures in the financial statements.



The Audit Committee reviewed with the independent auditors, who are responsible for expressing an opinion on the conformity of those audited financial statements with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, their judgments as to the quality, not just the acceptability, of the Trusts accounting principles and such other matters as are required to be discussed with the Audit Committee under auditing standards generally accepted in the United States. In addition, the Audit Committee has discussed with the independent auditors the auditors independence from management and the Trust including the matters in the written disclosures required by the Independence Standards Board.



The Audit Committee discussed with the Trusts independent auditors the overall scope and plans for their audit. The Audit Committee met with the independent auditors, with and without management present, to discuss the results of their examination, their evaluation of the Trusts internal controls and the overall quality of the Trusts financial reporting.



The Board of Trustees accepted the Audit Committees reappointment of Ernst & Young LLP as independent auditors to the financial statements of the Trust for the year 2009. All audit and non-audit services (printing and reproduction services) were preapproved by the Audit Committee. Fees paid in 2009 for the annual audit services were $77,000, for audited-related services were $1,350, for tax services were $0 and for all other services were $3,000. Fees paid in 2008 for the annual audit services were $76,600, for audit-related services were $6,350, for tax services were $0 and for all other services were $4,799.



In reliance on the reviews and discussions referred to above, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Trustees that the audited financial statements be included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.





Respectfully submitted,



/s/ Robert A. SteinRobert A. Stein, Audit Committee Chairman/s/ Roger W. StaehleRoger W. Staehle, Audit Committee Member/s/ James E. SwearingenJames E. Swearingen, Audit Committee Member
     Dated:
     February 18, 2010










---
### §530. Cooperation for purposes of development and administration with State and local governmental agencies and others

In the effectuation of sections 528 to 531 of this title the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to cooperate with interested State and local governmental agencies and others in the development and management of the national forests.

(Pub. L. 86–517, §3, June 12, 1960, 74 Stat. 215.)

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Transfer of Functions

Enforcement functions of Secretary or other official in Department of Agriculture, insofar as they involve lands and programs under jurisdiction of that Department, related to compliance with the provisions of sections 528 to 531 of this title with respect to pre-construction, construction, and initial operation of transportation system for Canadian and Alaskan natural gas were transferred to the Federal Inspector, Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, until the first anniversary of date of initial operation of the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, see Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1979, §§102(f), 203(a), 44 F.R. 33663, 33666, 93 Stat. 1373, 1376, effective July 1, 1979, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees. Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System abolished and functions and authority vested in Inspector transferred to Secretary of Energy by section 3012(b) of Pub. L. 102–486, set out as an Abolition of Office of Federal Inspector note under section 719e of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. Functions and authority vested in Secretary of Energy subsequently transferred to Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects by section 720d(f) of Title 15.
#### Parker *v.*Spalding County.

Holden, J.

1. The plaintiff in his suit for damages made substantially the following allegations: He was injured because of defects in a public bridge constructed by the defendant since December 29, 1888, and forming a part of the public road of the county. The bridge was over a branch, and water constantly ran under and through it. “In constructing said bridge the county authorities built the same out of terra cotta .about 24 inches in diameter, and in the upper end of the same they *70made a solid stone abutment about three feet high and about eight feet long, so as to draw all the water to and force it through this opening under the bridge of 24 inches. That the county authorities covered the terra cotta bridge with dirt so as to conceal the same.” The opening was inadequate to carry the -water collecting above it, and as the water “ran over the bridge it washed out the dirt leaving a hole seven (7) feet long, eighteen inches wide, and twelve inches deep, on the top and side of the terra cotta bridge.” The county authorities “had knowledge of the existence of said hole for more than two weeks, and had failed and refused to repair the same.” While riding over the bridge on his bicycle it ran into the hole and threw him to the ground, thereby inflicting the injuries set forth, without his fault. *Held:*

February 18, 1910.

Action for damages. Before Judge Reagan. Spalding superior court.

January 17, 1909.

*Robert T. Daniel,*for plaintiff.

*Cleveland & Goodrich*and W. *E. IT. Searcy Jr.,*for defendant.

1. *Á*county is not liable to suit unless there is a law which in express-terms’ or by necessary implication so declares. *Millwood*v. *DeKalb County,*106 *Ga.*743 (32 S. E. 577).

2. Under the provisions of the Political Code, § 603, declaring, “Provided, however, that in every case the county shall be primarily liable for all injuries caused by reason of any defective bridges, whether erected by contractors or county authorities,” the county was not liable for the injuries set forth, as the injuries were not caused by reason of any defective bridge within the meaning of the word “bridges” employed in such section.

3. Under the ruling above announced, there was no error in dismissing the-petition upon appropriate demurrer thereto.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices eoneur.*