alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TE XAS

N O . P D - 1 3 1 7 - 1 5

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

v . M A R Y Z U N I G A , A p p e l l e e O N A P P E L L E E ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W F R O M T H E T H I R T E E N T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

N U E C E S C O U N T Y K E L L E R , P . J . , f

i l e d a d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n i n w h i c h K E A S L E R a n d H E R V E Y , J J . j o i n e d . The Court say s that appellee raised both a “def ect of form” claim and a “def ect of substance” claim. Whil e that may be true in some sense, it does not appea r to me that she sep ar at ed out the claims in the manner that this Court does. For th i s re as o n , I do not fault the court of appea ls for failing t o separ ate out the claims in its opinion. I believe that the court of appea ls adequately addre ssed appe llee’s c laim, so I would aff irm that court’s judg ment. Whil e it is true that some parts of the court of appea ls’s opinion discuss whether the specificZU NIG A DISSENT — 2

identity of the destroy ed evidenc e was an element of the offe nse, other parts seem to focus on notice. Also, appellee does not seem to have arg ued the two-step analy sis that this Court employ s. The court of appe als was a

war e that appe llee’s c laim included a notice claim. The court fr amed the issue a s follows: We are asked to deter

mine whether an “unknown substance” can be a “thing ” under section 37.09 of the penal code such that an indictment a lleg ing the same c omplies with the constitutional notice req u i rements and the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e. 1 Be cause the court acknow ledg ed both aspec ts of appellee ’s claim, I believe its holding was intended to, and did, also encompa ss both claims. Finally , appellee does not complain in her petition to this Court that the court of appea ls err ed in failing to employ the two-step analy sis. She arg ues instead that the in d i ct m en t fa i led to provide information adequate to allow her to prepa re a defe nse. I believe tha t the court of a ppeals’s opinion suffic iently addre ssed the cla im before it. I respe ctfully

dissent.

Filed: Mar ch 8, 2017 Publis h

State v. Zuniga , No. 13-14-00316- CR, 2015 Tex. App. L EXI S 7294, *5 (Tex.

1 App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg J uly 16, 2015) (not desig nated f or publication).
129 STAT. 200 PUBLIC LAW 114–16—MAY 22, 2015 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 1075: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 161 (2015): 

Apr. 28, considered and passed House. 

May 12, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–16 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the United States Customs and Border Protection Port of Entry located 

at First Street and Pan American Avenue in Douglas, Arizona, as the ‘‘Raul 

Hector Castro Port of Entry’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. RAUL HECTOR CASTRO PORT OF ENTRY. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The United States Customs and Border 

Protection Port of Entry located at First Street and Pan American 

Avenue in Douglas, Arizona, shall be known and designated as 

the ‘‘Raul Hector Castro Port of Entry’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the port 

of entry referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a 

reference to the ‘‘Raul Hector Castro Port of Entry’’. 

Approved May 22, 2015. 

May 22, 2015 

[H.R. 1075] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  About SBA 
-  Oversight and Advocacy 
-  Office of Inspector General 
-  Protect Yourself From Scams and Fraud 

## Section navigation

-  About OIG 
-  Reports 
-  Pandemic response oversight 
-  OIG Hotline 
-  Congressional affairs and media 
-  Whistleblower protection 
-  Protect yourself from scams and fraud 
-  Connect with OIG 
-  Work for OIG 

# Protect yourself from scams and fraud

----

## Content

----

## Grants

SBA only communicates from email addresses ending in **@sba.gov**. If you are being contacted by someone claiming to be from the SBA who is not using an official SBA email address, you should suspect fraud.

## Loans

                  - If you are contacted by someone promising to get approval of an SBA loan, but requiring any payment up front or offering a high-interest bridge loan in the interim, suspect fraud.
                  - SBA limits the fees a broker can charge a borrower to 3% for loans $50,000 or less and 2% for loans $50,000 to $1,000,000 with an additional 1⁄4% on amounts over $1,000,000, with a maximum fee of $30,000.  Any attempt to charge more than these fees is inappropriate.
                  - If you have a question about getting a SBA disaster loan, call 800-659-2955 or send an email. to  disastercustomerservice@sba.gov
                  - If you have questions about other SBA lending products, call SBA’s Answer Desk at 1-800-827-5722 or send an email to  answerdesk@sba.gov

## Phishing

                  - Some phishing attempts use the SBA logo. Even when something looks official, verify that it comes from an account ending in  @sba.gov  or  @campaigncreator.sba.gov , and cross-reference the information you receive with information available at  www.sba.gov .
                  - If you are in the process of applying for an SBA loan and receive email correspondence asking for Personally Identifiable Information (PII), ensure that the referenced application number is consistent with the actual application number.

## Report fraud

Report fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement of federal funds involving SBA programs, operations, or personnel to the SBA OIG Hotline. Information collected through the Hotline helps keep the SBA OIG aware of risks and trends that affect the SBA’s programs.

## Downloadable flyer

                  - Scams and Fraud Alerts flyer
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN:_ SE01286

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B

.
|  |  | [if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have  reached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection  (FDLP/EC) Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the  FDLP/EC. Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's  suite of cataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S.  Government Publications.
Title: Number, timing, and duration of  marriages and divorces, 2009
 
Links to:  Report
 - Links to:  Table1_asian_2009.csvTable1_asian_2009.xlsTable1_black_2009.csvTable1_black_2009.xlsTable1_hispanic_2009.csvTable1_hispanic_2009.xlsTable1_white-nonhispanic_2009.csvTable1_white-nonhispanic_2009.xlsTable1_white_2009.csvTable1_white_2009.xls
SuDocs No. C 3.186:P-70/2/125
Item No. 0142-C-08 (online)
A service of the Superintendent of Documents,  U.S. Government Printing Office..

 

Last updated:  September 24,  2016  Page Name:  http://permanent.fdlp.gov/
  |
|--|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
October 12, 1999

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Mr. Donald M. Corliss, Jr.
President
Netgateway, Inc.
300 Oceangate
Suite 500
Long Beach, CA 90802

                                    Re:  Termination of Option Agreements

Dear Don:

         Reference is made to: (a) the Netgateway,  Inc. Stock Option  Agreement
Pursuant to the 1998 Stock Option Plan for Senior Executives, by and between you
and Netgateway Inc. (the "Company"),  dated as of December 15, 1998, pursuant to
which you were granted the right and option to purchase  from the Company all or
a part of an  aggregate  of 400,000  shares of common  stock of the Company at a
purchase price of $4.87 per share, subject to the terms and conditions contained
therein;  and (b) the Netgateway,  Inc. Stock Option  Agreement  Pursuant to the
1998  Stock  Option  Plan for  Senior  Executives,  by and  between  you and the
"Company", dated as of December 15, 1998, pursuant to which you were granted the
right and option to purchase  from the Company all or a part of an  aggregate of
264,000  shares of common stock of the Company at a purchase  price of $2.50 per
share, subject to the terms and conditions contained therein (collectively,  the
"Option Agreements").

         This  will  confirm  that you and the  Company  agree  that the  Option
Agreements shall be, and hereby are, terminated in all respects, effective as of
the date  hereof.  Any and all  options  granted  under the  Option  Agreements,
whether vested or unvested,  shall be deemed  forfeited,  and all of your rights
under the Option Agreements, if any, shall be terminated.

         Please  acknowledge  your  consent to the  foregoing  by signing in the
space provided below and returning a copy of this letter to the Company.


                                    Very truly yours,

                                    NETGATEWAY, INC.

                                        /s/ Roy W. Camblin III
                                    By: ______________________
                                        Roy W. Camblin III
                                        Chief Executive Officer

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

/s/ Donald M. Corliss, Jr.
--------------------------
Donald M. Corliss, Jr.

Dated:  October 12, 1999
Diane Kearns
- Osterweil 3921 Grey stone Dr. Austin, TX 78731 512
- 799
- 1221 dikearns@aol.com April 3, 2014 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations, M
- 30 West Building ground floor, Room W12
- 140 1200 New Jersey

Avenue, SE Washington , DC 20590 RE: Request to extend exemption docket number FAA
- 2012
- 0742 This letter is to request an extension for the exception granted in 2012 for Dean Osterweil to be able to use an FAA Approved Child Restraint Sy stem even though he exceeds the weight limits for the CRS. The exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) enables Dean to use a CARES seat belt sy stem while travelling on any commercial air carrier. Dean Osterweil's phy sical condition is as follows: diagnosis of cerebral palsy and unable to walk, stand, or sit w ithout assistance. He uses a pediatric wheelchair for mobility. Dean is 4 8 ” tall and is currentl y weighs 52 pounds. As a result of his phy sical condition, he needs the support and securit y provided b y an FAA Approved Child Restraint, but because of his h eight & weight is incapable of compliance with the regulation. I request that the processing of extension request not be delayed for publication and comment in the Federal Register. I f it is necessary to put a summary

in the Federal Register, I submit the following: This is a request for an exemption from FAR 121.311 (b) to the extent required for a child to use an FAA Approved Child Restraint Sy stem on an aircraft, even though the child exceeds the height & weight limits for the CRS. Due to phy sical c hallenges, without the support and security of this FAA Approved Child Restraint Sy stem, this child would be unable to fly . We request that this child be allowed to occup y an FAA Approved Child Restraint (CARES, manufactured b y AmSafe, Inc.), even though h e exceeds the manufacturer’s weight limits of 44 pounds. In this case, the safet y of this child is greatl y enhanced by the extra support and security that the FAA Approved Restraint S ys tem will provide for him during the flight
. Sincerel y, Diane Kearns
- O sterweil
### Geology and hydrology of the Piqua area, Ohio

By: Stanley Eugene NorrisAndrew M. Spieker

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1133A

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

 Richmond Division 

In re: 

 

 Tammy Annette Luck Case No. 16-31726-KRH 

 

 Debtor(s) Chapter 13 

5108 Yellowstone Drive 

Petersburg, VA 23803 

 

Last four digits of Social Security or Individual Tax-payer 

Identification (ITIN) No(s)., (if any): 7328 

MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING

ON DEBTORS’ MOTION TO CONTINUE THE AUTOMATIC STAY

 COMES NOW, the Debtor, by counsel, and as and for her Motion for an Expedited Hearing 

pursuant to Rule 9013 and Local Rule 9013(N), states as follows: 

1. On April 7, 2016, Debtor filed a Petition in Bankruptcy. 

2. On April 26, 2016, the Debtor filed a Motion to Continue the Automatic Stay Pursuant to 

11 U.S.C. §362 (c)(3)(A) and (B) and Notice of Motion. 

3. Counsel has requested a hearing before the Court on Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at 12:00 

p.m. to be heard on this Motion. 

 Tammy Annette Luck 

/s/ Brian K. Stevens 

Brian K. Stevens, Esq., VSB#25974 

America Law Group, Inc. 

207A South Main Street 

Blackstone, VA 23824 

(434) 292-6529 

CERTIFICATION 

 I, Brian K. Stevens, pursuant to Local Rule 9013 (N), do hereby certify that: 

1. I have carefully examined the matter and concluded that there is a true need for an 

emergency hearing. 

2. I have not created the emergency through any lack of due diligence. 

Case 16-31726-KRH Doc 15 Filed 04/28/16 Entered 04/28/16 08:51:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
3. This request could not be resolved without a hearing. 

/s/ Brian K. Stevens 

Brian K. Stevens, Esq. 

America Law Group, Inc. 

207A South Main Street 

Blackstone, VA 23824 

Counsel for Tammy Annette Luck 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this April 26, 2016, a copy of the foregoing Motion was

electronically transmitted and/or mailed/faxed to Carl M. Bates, Chapter 13 Trustee, P. O. Box 

1819, Richmond, VA 23218-1819, the U.S. Trustee at 701 E. Broad Street, Richmond, VA 

23218, and to all creditors named below and parties in interest requesting electronic notice. 

/s/ Brian K. Stevens 

Brian K. Stevens, Esq. 

 CREDITORS: 

Brock & Scott 

484 Viking Drive, Suite 203 

Virginia Beach, VA 23452 

Ocwen Loan Servicing 

P.O. Box 660264 

Dallas, TX 75266 

Treasurer of Dinwiddie 

P.O. Box 178 

Dinwiddie, VA 23841 

US Office of Personnel 

1900 E Street NW 

Washington, DC 20415 

Case 16-31726-KRH Doc 15 Filed 04/28/16 Entered 04/28/16 08:51:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
§ 627.3 Definitions. The following terms used in this part are defined as follows: ( a ) *Bridge project.* A bridge project shall include any project where the primary purpose is to construct, reconstruct, rehabilitate, resurface, or restore a bridge.
( b ) *Final design.* Any design activities following preliminary design and expressly includes the preparation of final construction plans and detailed specifications for the performance of construction work.
( c ) *Project.* The term “project” means any undertaking eligible for assistance under title 23 of the United States Code. The limits of a project are defined as the logical termini in the environmental document and may consist of several contracts, or phases of a project or contract, which may be implemented over several years.
( d ) *Total project costs.* The estimated costs of all work to be conducted on a project including the environment, design, right-of-way, utilities and construction phases.
( e ) *Value Engineering (VE) analysis.* The systematic process of reviewing and assessing a project by a multidisciplinary team not directly involved in the planning and development phases of a specific project that follows the VE Job Plan and is conducted to provide recommendations for: ( 1 ) Providing the needed functions, considering community and environmental commitments, safety, reliability, efficiency, and overall life-cycle cost (as defined in 23 U.S.C. 106(f)(2));
( 2 ) Optimizing the value and quality of the project; and
( 3 ) Reducing the time to develop and deliver the project.
( f ) *Value Engineering (VE) Job Plan.* A systematic and structured action plan for conducting and documenting the results of the VE analysis. While each VE analysis shall address each phase in the VE Job Plan, the level of analysis conducted and effort expended for each phase may be scaled to meet the needs of each individual project. The VE Job Plan shall include and document the following seven phases: ( 1 ) Information Phase: Gather project information including project commitments and constraints.
( 2 ) Function Analysis Phase: Analyze the project to understand the required functions.
( 3 ) Creative Phase: Generate ideas on ways to accomplish the required functions which improve the project's performance, enhance its quality, and lower project costs.
( 4 ) Evaluation Phase: Evaluate and select feasible ideas for development.
( 5 ) Development Phase: Develop the selected alternatives into fully supported recommendations.
( 6 ) Presentation Phase: Present the VE recommendation to the project stakeholders.
( 7 ) Resolution Phase: Evaluate, resolve, document and implement all approved recommendations.
( g ) *Value Engineering Change Proposal (VECP).* A construction contract change proposal submitted by the construction contractor based on a VECP provision in the contract. These proposals may improve the project's performance, value and/or quality, lower construction costs, or shorten the delivery time, while considering their impacts on the project's overall life-cycle cost and other applicable factors.
#### § 83.110 Are any of my Federal assistance awards exempt from this part?

This part does not apply to any award that the Attorney General or designee determines that the application of this part would be inconsistent with the international obligations of the United States or the laws or regulations of a foreign government.
Jfourtl) Court of Sppeate

iz>an Sntonto, TKexas

July 30,2014

No. 04-13-00518-CVand 04-13-00875-CV

Sandra Garza Davis Ck/a Sandra C. Saks and Landen Saks,

Appellants

v.

Lauren Saks Merriman,

Appellee

Trial Court Case No. 201 l-PC-3466

ORDER

The Court has reviewed the record and briefs in this appeal and has determined that oral

argument will not significantly aid it in determining the legal and factual issues presented in the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. Therefore, all requests for oral argument are denied, and the

cause is advanced for ON BRIEFS submission on September 9, 2014, to the following panel:

Chief Justice Stone, Justice Angelini, and Justice Martinez. All parties will be notified of the

Court's decision in this appeal in accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 48.

Either party may file motion requesting the Court to reconsider its determination that

oral argument will not significantly aid the Court in determining the legal and factual issues

presented in the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8. Such motion should be filed within ten (10)

days from the date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on July 30,2014.

\A/U,

Camerine/Stone, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, have hereunto set my hand and a/fixed the seal o/the said

court on this July 30, 2014.
### §410w. Administration, protection, and development

When established pursuant to this subchapter, the park shall be administered, protected, and developed by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the provisions of the Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1–4),1 as amended and supplemented, and the Historic Sites Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; U.S.C.2 461–467).1

(Pub. L. 86–321, §5, Sept. 21, 1959, 73 Stat. 592.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1–4), referred to in text, is act Aug. 25, 1916, ch. 408, 39 Stat. 535, known as the National Park Service Organic Act, which enacted sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of this title and provisions set out as a note under section 100101 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs. Sections 1 to 4 of the Act were repealed and restated as section 1865(a) of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and section 100101(a), chapter 1003, and sections 100751(a), 100752, 100753, and 102101 of Title 54 by Pub. L. 113–287, §§3, 4(a)(1), 7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3094, 3260, 3272. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables. For disposition of former sections of this title, see Disposition Table preceding section 100101 of Title 54.

The Historic Sites Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; U.S.C. 461–467), referred to in text, is act Aug. 21, 1935, ch. 593, 49 Stat. 666, also known as the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and as the Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act, which enacted sections 461 to 467 of this title. The Act was repealed and restated as section 1866(a) of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, and sections 102303 and 102304 and chapter 3201 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs, by Pub. L. 113–287, §§3, 4(a)(1), 7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3094, 3260, 3272. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables. For disposition of former sections of this title, see Disposition Table preceding section 100101 of Title 54.

1 See References in Text note below.

2 So in original.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

In connection with the quarterly report of TheSCO Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q, for the three monthsended April 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bert B. Young, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.             The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| By:    | /s/ Bert B. Young       |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Bert B. Young           |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   |                    |
|   |                    |
| Date:  | April 1,  2005     |

 

1

----