alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 1003
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 1003 appear at 68 FR 9846, Feb. 28, 2003, and at 68 FR 10350, Mar. 5, 2003.

§ 1003.32 Service and size of documents. The service of filings with the immigration courts depends on whether the documents are filed through EOIR's electronic filing application or in paper. ( a ) *Service of electronic filings.* If all parties are using EOIR's electronic filing application in a specific case, the parties do not need to serve a document that is filed through EOIR's electronic filing application on the opposing party. If all parties are using EOIR's electronic filing application in a specific case, EOIR's electronic filing application will effectuate service by providing a notification of all electronically filed documents on all parties. Upon successful upload by one of the parties, EOIR will email a notification to the email addresses provided in paragraph (b) of this section. If one or more parties are not filing through EOIR's electronic filing application in a specific case, the parties must follow the service procedures in paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) *Valid email address.* Use of EOIR's electronic filing application requires a valid email address for electronic service. The immigration courts will use the email address provided through eRegistry for electronic service on participating parties. Users must immediately update their eRegistry account if their email address changes. Representatives must additionally file a new Form EOIR-28 with the immigration court if their email address changes. EOIR will consider service completed when the electronic notification is delivered to the last email address on file provided by the user.
( c ) *Service of paper filings.* If electronic filing is not being used in a particular case, the party filing with the immigration court must serve a copy of the filing on the opposing party and include a certificate of service showing service on the opposing party with their filing. The immigration judge will not consider any documents or applications that do not contain a certificate of service unless service is made on the record during a hearing.
( d ) *Size and format of documents.* Unless otherwise permitted by the immigration judge, all written material presented to immigration judges including offers of evidence, correspondence, briefs, memoranda, or other documents must be submitted on 81 ⁄ 2′′ x 11′′ size pages, whether filed electronically or in paper. The immigration judge may require that exhibits and other written material presented be indexed, paginated, and that a table of contents be provided.
[86 FR 70723, Dec. 13, 2021]
§ 607.4 What are low educational and general expenditures? ( a ) ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, for the purpose of § 6072(a)(2), an applicant institution's average educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent undergraduate student in the base year must be less than the average educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent undergraduate student of comparable institutions that offer similar institution in that year.
( 2 ) For the purpose of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the Secretary determines the average educational and general expenditure per FTE undergraduate student for institutions with graduate students that do not differentiate between graduate and undergraduate E&G expenditures by discounting the graduate enrollment using a factor of 2.5 times the number of graduate students.
( b ) Each year, the Secretary notifies prospective applicants through a notice in the Federal Register of the average educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent undergraduate student at comparable institutions that offer similar instruction.
( c ) The Secretary may waive the requirement contained in paragraph (a) of this section, if the Secretary determines, based upon persuasive evidence provided by the institution, that— ( 1 ) The institution's failure to satisfy the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section was due to factors which, if used in determining compliance with those criteria, distorted that determination; and
( 2 ) The institution's designation as an eligible institution under this part is otherwise consistent with the purposes of this part.
( d ) For the purpose of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the Secretary considers that the following factors may distort an institution's educational and general expenditures per full-time equivalent undergraduate student— ( 1 ) Low student enrollment;
( 2 ) Location of the institution in an unusually high cost-of-living area;
( 3 ) High energy costs;
( 4 ) An increase in State funding that was part of a desegregation plan for higher education; or
( 5 ) Operation of high cost professional schools such as medical or dental schools.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1058 and 1067)
[59 FR 41922, Aug. 15, 1994]
#### Vincent Mulcahy, an Infant, by Mary Mulcahy, His Guardian ad Litem, Respondent, v. Michael Purcell and Joseph Purcell, Appellants.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event, upon the ground that the communication to the jury of the information that there was an insurance company behind the defendants was improper and prejudicial. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Stapleton, JJ., concurred.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Barausch or Baruch Schneider and Others, Defendants.

Motion for stay granted, on condition that the defendant Kerr perfect his appeal, place the case on the next calendar, and be ready for argument when reached; otherwise, motion denied. Present —Jenks, P. J., Burr, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1625

___________

Dale Brent Adams, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Arkansas.

Tyson Foods, Inc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 4, 2011

Filed: October 7, 2011

___________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dale Adams appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary judgment

in his employment-discrimination action against his former employer, Tyson Foods.

Upon careful de novo review, we conclude that the district court properly granted

Tyson Foods summary judgment, because Adams failed to present a trialworthy issue

as to whether Tyson’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his termination was

a pretext for unlawful discrimination. See Tusing v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch.

Dist., 639 F.3d 507, 514-18 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard of review; burden-shifting

1

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.
analysis); Manning v. American Republic Ins. Co., 604 F.3d 1030, 1044 (8th Cir.)

(absenteeism constitutes legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination), cert.

denied, 131 S. Ct. 648 (2010); Bloom v. Metro Heart Grp. of St. Louis, Inc., 440 F.3d

1025, 1028-29 (8th Cir. 2006) (conclusory allegations and speculation are insufficient

to defeat summary judgment).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny Adams’s pending

motions for an injunction and sanctions.

______________________________

-2-
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4725 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 8585 Criterion Drive in Colorado Springs, 

Colorado, as the ‘‘Chaplain (Capt.) Dale Goetz Memorial 

Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 4725 EH

1 SECTION 1. CHAPLAIN (CAPT.) DALE GOETZ MEMORIAL 

2 POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 8585 Criterion Drive in Colorado 

5 Springs, Colorado, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘Chaplain (Capt.) Dale Goetz Memorial Post Office Build7 ing’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any references in a law, map, 

9 regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Chaplain (Capt.) Dale 

12 Goetz Memorial Post Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 30, 

2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4725 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Posting’’. (Capt.) Dale Goetz Memorial Post Office Build- orado Springs, Colorado, as the ‘‘Chaplain al Service located at 8585 Criterion Drive in Col-
Exhibit 23

Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the
incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Hibernia
Corporation of our report dated January 15, 2003, included in the 2002
Annual Report to Shareholders of Hibernia Corporation.

We also consent to the incorporation
by reference in the following Hibernia Corporation Registration Statements

            Form S-3 No. 33-26553 (dated February 21, 1989) 
            Form S-8 No. 2-81353 (dated February 23, 1989)   
            Form S-8 No. 33-26871 (dated February 23, 1989)  
            Form S-3 No. 33-37701 (dated January 31, 1991)   
            Form S-8 No. 2-96194 (dated April 8, 1991)       
            Form S-3 No. 33-53108 (dated December 28, 1992)  
            Form S-3 No. 33-55844 (dated December 28, 1992)  
            Form S-8 No. 33-59743 (dated June 1, 1995)       
            Form S-3 No. 333-8133 (dated September 19, 1996) 
            Form S-8 No. 333-07761 (dated July 8, 1996)      
            Form S-8 No. 333-36017 (dated September 19, 1997)
            Form S-8 No. 333-56053 (dated June 4, 1998)      
            Form S-8 No. 333-83611 (dated July 23, 1999)     
            Form S-8 No. 333-65268 (dated July 17, 2001)     
            Form S-8 No. 333-65276 (dated July 17, 2001)     
            Form S-8 No. 333-85350 (dated April 2, 2002)     
            Form S-8 No. 333-102158 (dated December 23, 2002)     
            Form S-3 No. 333-08133 (dated January 13, 2003)

of our report dated
January 15, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of
Hibernia Corporation incorporated by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 2002.

/s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New Orleans, Louisiana
March 6, 2003
NUMBER 13-19-00440-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG ____________________________________________________________

CHRISTINA RENEE DRAPER, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 103rd District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

Appellant, Christina Renee Draper, proceeding pro se, attempted to perfect an 

appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. We dismiss the appeal for 

want of jurisdiction.

This Court's appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed 

notice of appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent 
2

a timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to address the 

merits of the appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). 

The trial court imposed sentence in this matter on May 23, 2019. No motion for 

new trial was filed. Appellant filed her notice of appeal on September 4, 2019. On 

September 10, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the 

appeal was not timely perfected and that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was 

not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the Court’s directive. Appellant 

has not filed a response to the Court’s directive. 

Unless a motion for new trial has been timely filed, a notice of appeal must be filed 

within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after 

the day the trial court enters an appealable order. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). Where a 

timely motion for new trial has been filed, the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety 

days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. See id. 26.2(a)(2). 

The time within which to file the notice may be enlarged if, within fifteen days after the 

deadline for filing the notice, the party files the notice of appeal and a motion complying 

with Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See id. 26.3.

Appellant’s notice of appeal, filed more than three months after sentence was 

imposed, was untimely, and accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See 

Slaton, 981 S.W.2d at 210. Appellant may be entitled to an out-of-time appeal by filing 

a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; 

however, the availability of that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. See TEX.
3

CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(a); see also Ex parte Garcia, 988 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1999).

The appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION. 

LETICIA HINOJOSA

Justice

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the 

3rd day of October, 2019.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 14a0772n.06

Case No. 13-6508

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RICHARD CHESTER NORRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE EASTERN 

DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

M E M O R A N D U M

O P I N I O N

BEFORE: McKEAGUE and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; and POLSTER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM. Defendant Richard Chester Norris pled guilty to knowingly selling a 

firearm to a person prohibited from possessing a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(1). 

On November 5, 2013, he was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Norris 

challenges the sentence as procedurally unreasonable. He contends the district court improperly 

applied a sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B), based on the finding that he 

used the firearm in connection with another felony. Although the government originally opposed 

Norris’s claim of error, following oral arguments in this appeal, the government has 

acknowledged that Norris did not “use” the firearm. That is, the government has conceded “that 

defendant did not carry out any purpose or action by means of the firearm when he told [Ronnie] 

 

Honorable Dan Aaron Polster, United States District Judge for the Northern District of 

Ohio, sitting by designation. 
Case No. 13-6508

United States v. Norris

- 2 -

Mutter to dispose of it” . . . but only “sought Mutter’s cooperation as to another felony which 

involved the firearm.” Based on this concession, the government has joined with Norris in 

moving the court to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing. 

We find the motion well taken. Merely instructing the presumed owner of the firearm to 

“get rid of it” because it was evidence in a pending murder investigation—where Norris 

exercised no authority or influence over Mutter, where Mutter did not in fact own or possess the 

firearm, and where the instruction did not result in the desired impact on the firearm—is not 

“use” of the firearm in connection with another felony. Accordingly, notwithstanding the “due 

deference” owed to the district court’s sentencing determination, see United States v. Stafford, 

721 F.3d 380, 400–01 (6th Cir. 2013), we find the sentence enhancement improper. We

therefore VACATE the sentence and REMAND for resentencing.1

 

1Our ruling should not be construed as precluding the district court’s consideration of 

Norris’s communication with Mutter in fashioning an appropriate sentence. We hold simply that 

enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) is not appropriate on the facts of record.
§ 463.400 Who are the required one-stop partners? ( a ) Section 121(b)(1)(B) of WIOA identifies the entities that are required partners in the local one-stop delivery systems.
( b ) The required partners are the entities responsible for administering the following programs and activities in the local area: ( 1 ) Programs authorized under title I of WIOA, including: ( i ) Adults;
( ii ) Dislocated workers;
( iii ) Youth;
( iv ) Job Corps;
( v ) YouthBuild;
( vi ) Native American programs; and
( vii ) Migrant and seasonal farmworker programs;
( 2 ) The Wagner-Peyser Act Employment Service program authorized under the Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 *et seq.*), as amended by WIOA title III;
( 3 ) The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) program authorized under title II of WIOA;
( 4 ) The Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program authorized under title I of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 720 *et seq.*), as amended by WIOA title IV;
( 5 ) The Senior Community Service Employment Program authorized under title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3056 *et seq.*);
( 6 ) Career and technical education programs at the postsecondary level authorized under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 *et seq.*);
( 7 ) Trade Adjustment Assistance activities authorized under chapter 2 of title II of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271 *et seq.*);
( 8 ) Jobs for Veterans State Grants programs authorized under chapter 41 of title 38, U.S.C.;
( 9 ) Employment and training activities carried out under the Community Services Block Grant (42 U.S.C. 9901 *et seq.*);
( 10 ) Employment and training activities carried out by the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
( 11 ) Programs authorized under State unemployment compensation laws (in accordance with applicable Federal law);
( 12 ) Programs authorized under sec. 212 of the Second Chance Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17532); and
( 13 ) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) authorized under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.*), unless exempted by the Governor under § 463.405(b).
### §3145. Review and appeal of a release or detention order

(a) Review of a Release Order.—If a person is ordered released by a magistrate judge, or by a person other than a judge of a court having original jurisdiction over the offense and other than a Federal appellate court—

(1) the attorney for the Government may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation of the order or amendment of the conditions of release; and

(2) the person may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for amendment of the conditions of release.

The motion shall be determined promptly.

(b) Review of a Detention Order.—If a person is ordered detained by a magistrate judge, or by a person other than a judge of a court having original jurisdiction over the offense and other than a Federal appellate court, the person may file, with the court having original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion for revocation or amendment of the order. The motion shall be determined promptly.

(c) Appeal From a Release or Detention Order.—An appeal from a release or detention order, or from a decision denying revocation or amendment of such an order, is governed by the provisions of section 1291 of title 28 and section 3731 of this title. The appeal shall be determined promptly. A person subject to detention pursuant to section 3143(a)(2) or (b)(2), and who meets the conditions of release set forth in section 3143(a)(1) or (b)(1), may be ordered released, under appropriate conditions, by the judicial officer, if it is clearly shown that there are exceptional reasons why such person's detention would not be appropriate.

(Added Pub. L. 98–473, title II, §203(a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 1982; amended Pub. L. 101–647, title IX, §902(c), Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4827; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, §321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3145, act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 821, provided cross references to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure for rules covering parties and witnesses, prior to repeal in the revision of this chapter by section 203(a) of Pub. L. 98–473.

#### Amendments

1990—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 101–647 inserted at end "A person subject to detention pursuant to section 3143(a)(2) or (b)(2), and who meets the conditions of release set forth in section 3143(a)(1) or (b)(1), may be ordered released, under appropriate conditions, by the judicial officer, if it is clearly shown that there are exceptional reasons why such person's detention would not be appropriate."

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

#### Change of Name

Words "magistrate judge" substituted for "magistrate" in subsecs. (a) and (b) pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.
s County

M

NO

AN

A

T

DI

O 

H

A

g:\blm\buttermp\ams\FinalFigures\fig2-27_PAOwnership1117.mxd 

Gallatin County 

Three Forks 

Sweet Gras 

Park County 

Belgrade 

Bozeman 

Livingston 

90 § ̈¦

Big Sky 

Gardiner 

Yellowstone National Park 

West Yellowstone 

£¤287 

I

BLM NPS US Gov't USFW Project Area and Ownership

BOR Private US Gov't/FS Unknown Butte Field Office - EIS

RMP Planning Area, Montana 't FIGURE 2-27c 

0 Mil 10 es 

Local Gov State USFS Map

Location 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of

Land Management (BLM) f for use o

data for purposes not int

ended by BLM.
Case 18-10289-KHK Doc 1 Filed 01/26/18 Entered 01/26/18 14:17:09 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 11
Case 18-10289-KHK Doc 1 Filed 01/26/18 Entered 01/26/18 14:17:09 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 11
Case 18-10289-KHK Doc 1 Filed 01/26/18 Entered 01/26/18 14:17:09 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 11
Case 18-10289-KHK Doc 1 Filed 01/26/18 Entered 01/26/18 14:17:09 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 11
Case 18-10289-KHK Doc 1 Filed 01/26/18 Entered 01/26/18 14:17:09 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 11
Case 18-10289-KHK Doc 1 Filed 01/26/18 Entered 01/26/18 14:17:09 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 11
Case 18-10289-KHK Doc 1 Filed 01/26/18 Entered 01/26/18 14:17:09 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 11
Case 18-10289-KHK Doc 1 Filed 01/26/18 Entered 01/26/18 14:17:09 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 11
Case 18-10289-KHK Doc 1 Filed 01/26/18 Entered 01/26/18 14:17:09 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 11
Case 18-10289-KHK Doc 1 Filed 01/26/18 Entered 01/26/18 14:17:09 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 11
Case 18-10289-KHK Doc 1 Filed 01/26/18 Entered 01/26/18 14:17:09 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 11
Fourth Department,

March, 1943.

(March 10, 1943.)

#### In the Matter of Stephen Manko, Appellant, against City of Buffalo et al., Respondents.

Present — Cunningham, Taylor, Dowling, Harris and McCurn, JJ.