alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Bexar County Public Defender’s Office
Paul Elizondo Tower  101 W. Nueva St., Suite 310  San Antonio, TX 7820 5 Phone: (210) 335

- 0701  Fax: (210) 335

- 0707

May 1 9 , 2015

Honorable Keith E. Hottle, Clerk Fourth Court of Appeals
Cadena

- Reeves Justice Center 300 Dolorosa St., Suite 3200 San Antonio, TX 78205

Re: Julio Alejandro Zuniga v. The State of Texas Appeal No. 04 -15- 00 2 45

- CR Trial Court Case No. 2014 CR 0936

RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE ORDER

Dear Mr. Hottle :

On May 18, 2015, the Court ordered Appellant to show cause in writing why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. This letter is Appellant’s response to
that order.

This appeal should not be dismissed.

On October 14, 2014, Appellant was sentenced by the trial court in c ase number
2014CR0936

. The trial court certified that Appellant has the right of appeal. No n otice of appeal or motion for new trial was filed within 30 days of sentencing.

Appellant filed a writ under case number 2014CR0936

- W1 seeking the right to file an

out

- of

- time notice of appeal in case number 2014CR0936. He was successful. The Court of Criminal Appeals granted relief and directed Appellant to file his notice of appeal with the trial court clerk by May 1, 2015.

O n April 20 , 2015, Appellant timely filed his pro se notice of appeal in case 2014CR0936 (the underlying criminal case). This c ourt assigned Case No. 04

- 15

- 00245

- CR to the ACCEPTED 04-15-00245-CR FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 5/19/2015 11:54:37 AM KEITH HOTTLE CLERKappeal

. The undersigned filed the designation of the record and request for the reporter ’ s record with the clerk of the trial court on April 17, 2015. The clerk ’ s record was filed with this Court on April 28, 2015. The undersigned filed his docketing

state ment on May 1, 2015.

The Appellant , through undersigned counsel, inte nds to proceed with this appeal. It should NOT be dismissed

.

Sincerely,

/s/ Richard B. Dulany, Jr. RICHARD B. DULANY, JR.
Assistant Public Defender

Cc: Rico Valdez Appellate Chief Bexar County District Attorney’s Office 101 W. Nueva St., Suite 710 San Antonio, TX 78205 (Via electronic service to Jeanette Canales)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

DAY HIGH

 832

 786

 772

 665

 574

 573

 571

 580

 570

 631

 659

 654

 660

 588

 670

 737

 742

 842

 864

 894

 750

 857

 866

 945

 977

 930

 987

 893

 962

 651

 712

 671

 538

 513

 503

 512

 509

 485

 485

 473

 440

 475

 446

 466

 426

 402

 393

 379

 360

 376

 381

 405

 384

 365

 385

 427

 386

 394

 750

 756

 717

 577

 539

 528

 540

 533

 523

 551

 561

 573

 569

 510

 554

 563

 546

 574

 579

 596

 511

 635

 631

 667

 667

 543

 714

 564

 683

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2008 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 4, 2008

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 480

 483

 459

 373

 349

 342

 350

 345

 339

 357

 363

 370

 368

 331

 358

 364

 353

 371

 374

 384

 332

 408

 406

 428

 428

 352

 457

 365

 438

TOTAL 17,254

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
### §2428. Forfeitures

(a) In General.—The court, in imposing sentence on any person convicted of a violation of this chapter, shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed and irrespective of any provision of State law, that such person shall forfeit to the United States—

(1) such person's interest in any property, real or personal, that was used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of such violation; and

(2) any property, real or personal, constituting or derived from any proceeds that such person obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such violation.

(b) Property Subject to Forfeiture.—

(1) In general.—The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall exist in them:

(A) Any property, real or personal, used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of any violation of this chapter.

(B) Any property, real or personal, that constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to any violation of this chapter.

(2) Applicability of chapter 46.—The provisions of chapter 46 of this title relating to civil forfeitures shall apply to any seizure or civil forfeiture under this subsection.

(Added Pub. L. 109–164, title I, §103(d)(1), Jan. 10, 2006, 119 Stat. 3563.)
§ 75.524 Conflict of interest: Purpose of § 75.525. ( a ) The conflict of interest regulations of the Department that apply to a grant are in § 75.525.
( b ) These conflict of interest regulations do not apply to a “local government,” as defined in 2 CFR 200.64, or a “State,” as defined in 2 CFR 200.90.
( c ) The regulations in § 75.525 do not apply to a grantee's procurement contracts. The conflict of interest regulations that cover those procurement contracts are in 2 CFR part 200.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474)
[45 FR 22497, Apr. 3, 1980, as amended at 64 FR 50391, Sept. 16, 1999; 79 FR 76092, Dec. 19, 2014]
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of American Racing Capital, Inc. (the
      “ Company ”)
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      the
      undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




1.  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




2.  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.




Date:November
                12, 2007
            By:
            */s/
                A. Robert Koveleski*Name:
            A.
                Robert KoveleskiTitle:
            President
                and Chief Executive Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to American Racing Capital, Inc. and will
      be
      retained by American Racing Capital, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 52 

To require a report and assessment regarding Department of Homeland 

Security responses to terrorist threats to Federal elections, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 3, 2019 

Ms. JACKSON LEE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To require a report and assessment regarding Department 

of Homeland Security responses to terrorist threats to 

Federal elections, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Security for the Ad5 ministration of Federal Election from Terrorists Interven6 tion Act of 2019’’ or the ‘‘SAFETI Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 52 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECU2 RITY RESPONSES TO TERRORIST THREATS 

3 TO FEDERAL ELECTIONS. 

4 (a) SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY.—Not 

5 later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 

6 this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit 

7 to the Comptroller General of the United States and Con8 gress a report on actions taken by the Department of 

9 Homeland Security relating to terrorist threats to the in10 tegrity of elections for Federal office held in 2016. 

11 (b) GAO ASSESSMENT.—The Comptroller General of 

12 the United States shall, upon receipt of the report re13 quired pursuant to subsection (a), conduct an assessment 

14 of the effectiveness of Department of Homeland Security 

15 actions described in such report and include recommenda16 tions for improvements as the Comptroller General deter17 mines appropriate. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Exhibit  32.1




                             CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT  TO  SECTION  906
                             OF  THE  SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002


In connection with the  annual  report  of  InterCare DX,  Inc.  (the "Company")
on  Form  10-QSB  for  the  period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with  the
Securities and Exchange  Commission   on    the   date  hereof  (the  "Report"),
we,  Anthony  C.  Dike,  the  Chief Executive  Officer,  certify,  pursuant   to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as  adopted pursuant to  Section 906  of  the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002,  that:

(1)  The  Report  fully  complies  with  the  requirements of  Section  13(a) or
     15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

(2)  The  information contained  in the Report fairly presents, in all  material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

     A signed  original  of  this  written  statement  required  by Section 906,
or  other  document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or  otherwise adopting the
signature  that  appears  in  typed  form  within the electronic version of this
written  statement  required  by  Section  906,  has  been  provided  to
InterCare  DX,  Inc.,  and  will  be  retained   by   InterCare  DX,  Inc.,  and
furnished to the Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.


DATE: August 12, 2006          By:  /s/  Anthony  C.  Dike
                                        -------------------
                                         Anthony  C.  Dike
                                         Chairman  and  CEO
                               (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
State of Vermont Superior Court—Environmental Division

=================================================== =================== E N T R Y R E G A R D I N G M O T I O N

=================================================== ===================
Town of North Hero v. Herrington Docket No. 125-9-12 Vtec
Title: Consented-to Motion Reconsider and Correct “ Findings” (Filing Nos. 3) Filed: May 22, 2013. Filed By: Defendant Larry Herrington, by his attorn ey, Erin M. Heins, Esq.
The Town of North Hero consented to Defendant’s mot ion, as noted by Attorney Heins.

X Granted ___ Denied _ __ Other The Court thanks the parties for bringing to its at tention the error in its recitation of the factual background that was relevant to its May 10, 2013 Entry Order concerning the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. For the reason s stated in Defendant’s motion, the Court hereby STRIKES from its May 10, 2013 Entry Order the factual back ground paragraphs numbered 17 and 18 and hereby replace them with the following paragraphs:

17. On June 30 of 2012, the current Zoning Administrato r sent Defendant a letter alleging several zoning violations. A copy of this June 30, 2012 NOV was presented as Town Exhibit 12. The parties have stipulated that this letter did not constitute a formal notice of alleged zoning violations.

18. Since the Town’s June 30, 2012 letter did not const itute a notice of alleged zoning violations, Defendant filed no appeal of that lette r. The zoning violations alleged in the Town’s June 30, 2012 letter have therefore not beco me final and may be contested.
We wish to make clear that none of the paragraphs i temized in the Court’s May 10, 2013 Entry Order should be regarded as “factual findings .” The Court made no factual findings in rendering that pre-trial determination on the parti es’ competing motions for summary judgment. Rather, the Court was merely reciting th e material facts that appeared to be undisputed from its reading of the parties’ respect ive motions, legal memoranda, affidavits and other evidence. It is improper for a trial court to make factual fi ndings before the parties are afforded an opportunity to present evidence at an evidentiary h earing; within the context of reviewing pretrial summary judgment motions, the trial court sho uld merely recite its determination of which material facts appear to be undisputed. See All C ycle, Inc. v. Chittenden Solid Waste Dist., 164 Vt. 428, 437 (1995) (citing Crosby v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 143 Vt. 537, 539 (1983)).

_________________________________________ June 19, 2013 Thomas S. Durkin, Judge Date

=================================================== ========================== Date copies sent: ____________ Clerk's Initials: _______ Copies sent to: Paul Gillies, Esq., attorney for Plaintiff, th e Town of North Hero Erin M. Heins, Esq., attorney for Defendant La rry Herrington
all_density.xls 3/22/00 12:54 PM

Delta Smelt Salvage

2000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1/1/00 1/6/00 1/11/00 1/16/00 1/21/00 1/26/00 1/31/00

Salvage

0

50

100

150

200

250

Pumping X 100 af

14-Day Avg SWP Salvage CVP Salvage SWP Pumping Total Pumping
Black Hills National Forest
Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project

Vicinity Map Yak’
as wee

Legend
D> Potential Treatment Areas
7“ Main Roads

C7 Forest Boundary

ty) 5 10 20
es Miles

March, 2012
#### § 681.36 Consequence of using an agent.

The delegation of functions to a servicing agency or other party does not relieve a lender or holder of its responsibilities under the HEAL program.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 585

 585

 561

 561

 539

 530

 539

 533

 511

 497

 483

 463

 456

 452

 407

 400

 388

 365

 363

 365

 372

 372

 374

 376

 380

 384

 415

 427

 441

 469

 446

 513

 497

 486

 477

 466

 459

 449

 434

 434

 437

 443

 446

 434

 395

 386

 372

 359

 345

 348

 355

 355

 350

 343

 330

 331

 334

 344

 351

 342

 315

 303

 539

 525

 513

 509

 497

 486

 483

 473

 469

 464

 462

 456

 448

 422

 396

 384

 371

 356

 355

 360

 362

 357

 353

 348

 345

 355

 368

 380

 375

 353

 335

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2012 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE:June 22, 2012

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 349

 340

 333

 331

 323

 316

 314

 308

 306

 303

 302

 298

 293

 277

 261

 253

 245

 236

 235

 238

 240

 237

 234

 231

 229

 235

 243

 251

 248

 234

 223

TOTAL 12,899

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT HEADWORKS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>5

<S>                                                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                     DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                            22,224,813
<SECURITIES>                                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                      1,529,604
<ALLOWANCES>                                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                           0
<PP&E>                                                           184,012,291
<DEPRECIATION>                                                   120,260,981
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                    87,622,742
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                      0
<BONDS>                                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                                0
<COMMON>                                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                                        72,215,709
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                      87,622,742
<SALES>                                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                  16,304,608
<CGS>                                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                  30,685,836
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     192,917
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   134,341
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                  (14,708,486)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                              (14,708,486)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                                     (14,708,486)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                         (32.62)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                              0


</TABLE>
### §1651. Piracy under law of nations

Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 774.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §481 (Mar. 4, 1909, ch. 321, §290, 35 Stat. 1145).
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00648-CR

IN RE John Christopher MCELHATTEN

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 28, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On September 6, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel 

the trial court to rule on his pro se motion to dismiss appointed counsel. However, in order to be 

entitled to mandamus relief, relator must establish that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to 

perform a non-discretionary act; (2) was asked to perform the act; and (3) failed or refused to do 

so. In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). When 

a properly filed motion is pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and 

ruling upon that motion is ministerial, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial judge to act. 

See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. 

proceeding). However, mandamus will not issue unless the record indicates that a properly filed 

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2010-CR-10992 and 2010-CR-10993, styled State of Texas v. John 

Christopher McElhatten, in the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Lori I. 

Valenzuela presiding. 
04-11-00648-CR

- 2 -

motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable amount of time. See id. Relator has the 

burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a) (“Relator must file with the petition [ ] a certified or sworn copy of 

every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any 

underlying proceeding”); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 

833, 837 (Tex. 1992). 

Here, relator has not provided this court with a file stamped copy of his motion or any 

other documents to show that a properly filed motion is pending before the trial court and has 

been brought to the trial court’s attention. Additionally, relator asserts he filed his motion to 

dismiss appointed counsel on September 1, 2011, just six days before relator’s petition for writ 

of mandamus was filed in this court. Relator has failed to meet his burden that a properly filed 

motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonable amount of time. See id. Based on the 

foregoing, we conclude relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, 

relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

Additionally, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of 

Mandamus. No leave is required to file a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. TEX. R.

APP. P. 52. Therefore, relator’s motion for leave to file is DENIED as moot. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH