alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 ELEV

 2,341.72

 2,341.49

 2,341.22

 2,340.89

 2,340.65

 2,340.35

 2,340.06

 2,339.77

 2,339.50

 2,339.27

 2,338.99

 2,338.70

 2,338.40

 2,338.17

 2,337.92

 2,337.68

 2,337.43

 2,337.17

 2,336.91

 2,336.65

 2,336.12

 2,335.66

 2,335.28

 2,334.86

 2,334.56

 2,334.33

 2,334.10

 2,333.89

 2,333.63

 2,333.30

 2,333.02

 2,011.4

 2,008.0

 2,004.1

 1,999.3

 1,995.8

 1,991.5

 1,987.3

 1,983.1

 1,979.2

 1,975.9

 1,971.8

 1,967.7

 1,963.4

 1,960.1

 1,956.5

 1,953.1

 1,949.5

 1,945.8

 1,942.1

 1,938.4

 1,930.9

 1,924.4

 1,919.0

 1,913.1

 1,908.9

 1,905.6

 1,902.4

 1,899.5

 1,895.8

 1,891.2

 1,887.3

STORAGE

-3.5

-3.3

-3.9

-4.8

-3.5

-4.3

-4.2

-4.2

-3.9

-3.3

-4.0

-4.2

-4.3

-3.3

-3.6

-3.4

-3.6

-3.7

-3.7

-3.7

-7.5

-6.5

-5.4

-5.9

-4.2

-3.2

-3.2

-2.9

-3.6

-4.6

-3.9

CHANGE

306

380

184

-325

56

11

-94

53

154

-46

93

8

-62

315

293

349

422

425

458

267

57

131

240

-74

-51

249

358

402

280

42

146

INFLOW

 1,950

 1,938

 2,010

 1,976

 1,684

 2,032

 1,904

 2,053

 2,014

 1,524

 2,030

 1,995

 1,943

 1,864

 1,971

 1,963

 1,521

 2,203

 2,204

 2,015

 2,217

 2,218

 1,848

 1,008

 1,971

 1,771

 1,833

 1,794

 2,017

 2,226

 1,992

POWER

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

SPILL

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 544

 0

 0

 0

 1,532

 1,101

 985

 1,803

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

OUTLET

 116

 128

 154

 115

 124

 170

 119

 110

 102

 102

 97

 110

 164

 114

 126

 113

 155

 92

 121

 113

 100

 91

 112

 99

 103

 107

 153

 91

 95

 140

 127

C.F.S.

 .27

 .30

 .36

 .27

 .29

 .40

 .28

 .26

 .24

 .24

 .23

 .26

 .39

 .27

 .30

 .27

 .37

 .22

 .29

 .27

 .24

 .22

 .27

 .24

 .25

 .26

 .37

 .22

 .23

 .34

 .31

INCHES

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

 .00

PRECIP

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

AUGUST 2017 TRINITY LAKE DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: September 8, 2017

IN LAKE

EVAPORATION

INCHES

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

1000 ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS -127.3 5,027 59,689 0 5,965 3,663 8.73 .00

ACRE-FEET -127,300 9,971 118,393 0 11,832 7,266

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

POWER 118,393

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 11,832

 130,225

PRECIPITATION

THIS MONTH =

TO DATE =

 .00

JULY 1, 2017 .00

 2,014.8

Table 4

(1) (1)

OCT 1, 2016 TO DATE = 43.88
Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, nroneller, annliance\ Work~hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor+ u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include on~ condition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h pam) Registered and close~up) om) Products 

Inspection 2.0 .:> .. . • 10 

• 

. 

' 

. 

' o.: . 

. · ... . 

• 

. ' ' . i_. • ,·,_ 

' . ' 

• ' '<: ' ,~ : . 

' . 

,, ' 

' .. ·.·. 

: --c 

' 

' 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of comnliance for U.S. fleet: $1,700 

Costs covered under warrantv (if known) $ 

On~Condition Costs: 

Action Work~hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hom) 

replacement) testing, and close~ up) 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 
Is the AD significant? -

YES' D NO~ *Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.,~, 

YESD NO~ Explanation: This AD is not considered to be "significant" 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include_ specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? ·-

YES'D NO~ *Explanation: 

(
##### 



Year Ended December 31,2005
    
    
    2004
    
    
    2003
    
    
    2002
    
    
    2001Pre-tax income from continuing
operations
    
    $
    69,344
    
    
    $
    56,792
    
    
    $
    49,312
    
    
    $
    33,402
    
    
    $
    40,277Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    9,579
    
    
    $
    9,589
    
    
    $
    6,289
    
    
    $
    1,885
    
    
    $
    4,968Amortized premium
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    91
    
    
    
    61
    
    
    
    61Interest component of rental expense(1)
    
    
    565
    
    
    
    486
    
    
    
    411
    
    
    
    352
    
    
    
    519Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    10,144
    
    
    $
    10,075
    
    
    $
    6,791
    
    
    $
    2,298
    
    
    $
    5,548Pre-tax income from continuing
operations plus fixed charges
    
    $
    79,488
    
    
    $
    66,867
    
    
    $
    56,103
    
    
    $
    35,700
    
    
    $
    45,825Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    7.8
    x
    
    
    6.6
    x
    
    
    8.3
    x
    
    
    15.5
    x
    
    
    8.3
    x
 Quarter EndedApril 1,2006Pre-tax income from continuing
operations
    
    $
    24,613Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    2,411Interest component of rental expense(1)
    
    
    122Total Fixed Charges
    
    $
    2,533Pre-tax income from continuing
operations plus fixed charges
    
    $
    27,146Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
    
    
    10.7
    x
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsGaAs/Ge Solar Powered AircraftUnmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) are being proposed for many applications for many applications including surveillance, mapping and atmospheric studies. These applications require a lightweight, low speed, medium to long duration aircraft. Due to the weight, speed, and altitude constraints imposed on such an aircraft, solar array generated electric power can be a viable alternative to air-breathing engines for certain missions. Development of such an aircraft is currently being funded under the Environmental Research Aircraft and Sensor Technology (ERAST) program. NASA Lewis Research Center (LeRC) has built a Solar Electric Airplane to demonstrate UAV technology. This aircraft utilizes high efficiency Applied Solar Energy Corporation (ASEC) GaAs/Ge space solar cells. The cells have been provided by the Air Force through the ManTech Office.Document ID19980237011Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsColozza, Anthony J.*(Federal Data Corp. Brook Park, OH United States)*Scheiman, David A.*(Federal Data Corp. Brook Park, OH United States)*Brinker, David J.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1998Subject CategoryAircraft Propulsion And PowerReport/Patent NumberNASA/TM-1998-208652E-11371NAS 1.15:208652Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 477-72-10Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19980237011.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
### §§3646, 3647. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–261, div. C, title XXXV, §3507(a), Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2269

Section 3646, Pub. L. 96–70, title I, §1206, Sept. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 462, related to cost of living allowance.

Section 3647, Pub. L. 96–70, title I, §1207, Sept. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 462; Pub. L. 99–223, §5(a), Dec. 28, 1985, 99 Stat. 1739, related to educational travel benefits.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 105–261, div. C, title XXXV, §3507(a), Oct. 17, 1998, 112 Stat. 2269, provided that the repeals made by section 3507(a) are effective 11:59 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time), Dec. 30, 1999, and any right or condition of employment provided for in, or arising from, the repealed provisions is terminated.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Max Adler and Herman Lipsky, Appellants.

Judgment and orders affirmed. N o opinion. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### §182. Rights of Indian women marrying white men; tribal property

Every Indian woman, member of any such tribe of Indians, who may be married after August 9, 1888, to any citizen of the United States, is hereby declared to become by such marriage a citizen of the United States, with all the rights, privileges, and immunities of any such citizen, being a married woman: Provided, That nothing in sections 181 to 183 of this title contained shall impair or in any way affect the right or title of such married woman to any tribal property or any interest therein.

(Aug. 9, 1888, ch. 818, §2, 25 Stat. 392.)
§ 2.60 Who makes decisions on appeals? ( a ) The FOIA Appeals Officer is the deciding official for FOIA appeals that do not appeal a decision of the Office of Inspector General.
( b ) The General Counsel is the deciding official for FOIA appeals that appeal a decision of the Office of Inspector General.
( c ) When necessary, the appropriate deciding official for FOIA appeals will consult other appropriate offices, including the Office of the Solicitor or Office of General Counsel for denials of records and fee waivers.
( d ) The deciding official for FOIA appeals normally will not make a decision on an appeal if the request becomes a matter of FOIA litigation.
[81 FR 11130, Mar. 3, 2016]
!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

T25N

R114W

T26N

T27N

T28N

T29N

T30N

T31N

T32N

T33N

T34N

T35N

T36N

R113W R112W R111W R110W R109W R108W R107W R106W

UV352

UV354

UV353

UV350

UV351

£¤191

£¤189

UV235

Cora

Merna

Daniel

Boulder

Pinedale

LaBarge

Marbleton

Big Piney

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

o

0 1.5 3 6 9 12 15 18

Miles

Crucial Winter/Yearlong

Winter/Yearlong

Winter

Spring/Summer/Fall

Not Suitable Habitat

Moose Seasonal Use Areas

Map 3-19

SUBLETTE

LINCOLN

0 4.5 9 18 27 36 45

Kilometers

Source: Wyoming Game & Fish
**Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Robert A. Zummo, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Acorn Holding Corp.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14and 15d-14) for the small business issuer and have:a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisannual report is being prepared;b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as ofa date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the “EvaluationDate”); andc. presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which couldadversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial data and have identified for the small business issuer’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; andb. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the small business issuer’s internal controls over financialreporting.6. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this annual report whetheror not therewere significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internalcontrols subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.Date:November 2, 2005                                                        /s/ Robert A. Zummo   Robert A. Zummo, Chairman,   President and Chief Executive Officer
Electrical Conductivity, UMHOS

Day High Low Mean

1 78 71 73

2 76 73 74

3 78 76 77

4 78 75 76

5 78 76 76

6 81 76 78

7 83 81 82

8 83 81 82

9 81 77 80

10 81 77 79

11 82 76 78

12 83 80 81

13 83 80 81

14 81 78 79

15 80 78 79

16 81 78 79

17 83 80 81

18 85 81 83

19 87 82 84

20 91 83 87

21 92 86 88

22 88 84 85

23 88 83 86

24 87 81 85

25 86 81 83

26 94 82 88

27 110 95 103

28 121 112 117

29 127 123 125

30 130 126 128

COMMENT(S):

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

Historical Archive and Report Database

Staten Island On The South Fork 

Mokelumne River 

Period: June 2023 Run Date: 7/10/2023
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-19-00412-CR

KIRK LYNN WRIGHT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 297th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1588770D)

December 5, 2019

Opinion by Chief Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Bonnie Sudderth________________

 Chief Justice Bonnie Sudderth
§ 681.210 Who is an “out-of-school youth”? An OSY is an individual who is: ( a ) Not attending any school (as defined under State law);
( b ) Not younger than age 16 or older than age 24 at time of enrollment. Because age eligibility is based on age at enrollment, participants may continue to receive services beyond the age of 24 once they are enrolled in the program; and
( c ) One or more of the following: ( 1 ) A school dropout;
( 2 ) A youth who is within the age of compulsory school attendance, but has not attended school for at least the most recent complete school year calendar quarter. School year calendar quarter is based on how a local school district defines its school year quarters. In cases where schools do not use quarters, local programs must use calendar year quarters;
( 3 ) A recipient of a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent who is a low-income individual and is either basic skills deficient or an English language learner;
( 4 ) An offender;
( 5 ) A homeless individual aged 16 to 24 who meets the criteria defined in sec. 41403(6) of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14043e-2(6)), a homeless child or youth aged 16 to 24 who meets the criteria defined in sec. 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)) or a runaway;
( 6 ) An individual in foster care or who has aged out of the foster care system or who has attained 16 years of age and left foster care for kinship guardianship or adoption, a child eligible for assistance under sec. 477 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 677), or in an out-of-home placement;
( 7 ) An individual who is pregnant or parenting;
( 8 ) An individual with a disability; or
( 9 ) A low-income individual who requires additional assistance to enter or complete an educational program or to secure or hold employment.
[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 (CGP).
**Title:****The school survey on crime and safety(SSOCS) (Brochure)
 
2008 | 2010 | 2011
 
SuDoc Number:ED 1.102:C 86/3/
Item Number: 0461-A-01 (online)
CGP System Number:001031486
 
 
October 3, 2017**
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 ELEV

 730.15

 730.15

 730.15

 730.15

 730.15

 730.15

 727.37

 727.85

 728.25

 728.57

 728.89

 729.19

 729.49

 729.77

 730.04

 730.27

 730.49

 730.72

 730.97

 729.43

 729.68

 729.96

 730.18

 730.42

 730.65

 730.90

 731.13

 731.37

 731.60

 731.83

 732.74

 1,582

 1,582

 1,582

 1,582

 1,582

 1,582

 1,467

 1,487

 1,503

 1,516

 1,529

 1,542

 1,555

 1,566

 1,578

 1,587

 1,597

 1,606

 1,617

 1,552

 1,563

 1,574

 1,584

 1,594

 1,603

 1,614

 1,624

 1,634

 1,644

 1,654

 1,694

STORAGE

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

+0

-115

+20

+16

+13

+13

+13

+13

+11

+12

+9

+10

+9

+11

-65

+11

+11

+10

+10

+9

+11

+10

+10

+10

+10

+40

CHANGE

0

0

0

0

0

0

112

10

8

7

7

7

7

6

6

5

5

5

6

5

6

6

5

5

5

6

5

5

5

5

20

INFLOW

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 170

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 38

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

TIME COPPER

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

MARCH 2013 SPRING CREEK DEBRIS RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: April 1, 2013

IN LAKE

SPRING CR DEBRIS DAM

ZINC

C.F.S.

COMPUTED*

ACRE-FEET

RELEASE - C.F.S.

TOTALS +112 269 0 208

ACRE-FEET +112 534 0 413

COMMENTS:

* COMPUTED INFLOW IS THE SUM OF CHANGE IN STORAGE, RELEASES AND EVAPORATION.

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

SPILL 0

OUTLET

TOTAL

 413

 413

 1,582

SPILL OUTLET

**KES

COPPER

MG/L
#### § 801.1 Purpose and scope of this part.

This part 801 describes the establishment and the organizational structure of the Benefits Review Board of the Department of Labor, sets forth the general rules applicable to operation of the Board, and defines terms used in this chapter.
AAM

- 1 3

- 004

- E 10/31/2012

Exemption No. 10652 Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 20 12

- 1062

Mr. Brian Riley RAI Jets, LLC 1 Airport Road Sturgis, MI 49091

Dear M r

. Riley :

This let ter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated Sep tember 28 , 2012 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of RAI Jets, LLC ( RAI Jets ) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow RAI Jets to cover its safety

- s ensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program

.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in a cting on this petition would be detrimental to RAI Jets

.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA

found that Sol id Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two drug and alcohol testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent lev el of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 ;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant RAI Jets, LLC an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the

extent necessary to al low RAI Jets to cover its safety

- sensitive employees under one drug and alcohol testing program , subj ect to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of RAI Jets are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations a t all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the same auspices of

the RAI Jets part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on November 30

, 2014 , unless soon er superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

James R. Fraser Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
### §1123. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 92–309, §2, June 2, 1972, 86 Stat. 199, which provided for payment of costs incident to carrying out the provisions of former sections 1122 to 1130 of this title, was omitted from the Code as being of special and not general application.
### SUBCHAPTER III—DISCLAIMERS
COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 13th District Court of Navarro County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on January 29,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Michael David Williams v. The State of Texas

Case Number: 07-14-00128-CR Trial Court Number: D34,123-CR

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated January 29, 2015, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgment of the trial court is modified as set forth in the

opinion and affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis, no costs beyond those that

have already been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on June 3, 2015.

Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

FILE COPY