alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

SECOND ORDER OF CONTINUING ABATEMENT

Appellate case name: In the Interest of T.C., a Child, and

In the Interest of T.L.C., a Child

Appellate case number: 01-17-00497-CV and

01-17-00498-CV

Trial court case number: 2014-71072 and

2011-08360

Trial court: 309th District Court of Harris County

On October 5, 2017, the Court issued an order abating these appeals, remanding 

the cases to the trial court, and instructing it to allow appointed appellate counsel to 

withdraw. We further instructed the trial court to appoint new counsel to represent 

appellant on appeal, and have the district clerk prepare a supplemental clerk’s record 

containing that appointment and file it in each appeal no later than October 12, 2017. 

And, on October 13, 2017, the Court issued another order directing the trial court to 

appoint new counsel to represent appellant on appeal and have the district clerk file a 

supplemental clerk’s record containing the order appointing new appellate counsel by 

October 18, 2017. The Clerk of this Court has not received the supplemental clerk’s 

records.

Accordingly, we direct the trial court to IMMEDIATELY appoint new 

counsel to represent appellant on appeal and have the district clerk file, in each 

appeal, a supplemental clerk’s record containing an order appointing new appellate 

counsel no later than MONDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2017.

Counsel’s brief will be due 20 days from the date that counsel is appointed. 

Because these appeals involve parental-termination and child-protection cases, the Court 

is required to bring the appeals to final disposition within 180 days of June 30, 2017, the 

date the notices of appeal were filed in this proceedings, so far as reasonably possible. 

See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2, reprinted in TEX. GOV’T. CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. F app. 
2

(Vernon 2013); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 28.4. Accordingly no extensions of time will 

be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(d). Counsel 

who agrees to handle these appeals should do so only if he or she can satisfy the briefing

deadline.

The appeals remain abated, treated as closed cases and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. The appeals will be reinstated without further order of the Court when the 

supplemental clerk’s records containing the trial court’s order appointing counsel are 

filed with this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Terry Jennings

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 19, 2017
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17
- 1184

RICKEY G. YOUNG , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. STEVE DRAPER, Sheriff; CHIEF SEAN DUNN, Martinsville Police Department; SGT/DEPUTY PETERS; NANCY HYLTON, and others , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Danville

. Jackson L. Kiser , Senior District Judge. ( 4:17

- cv
- 00001

- JLK )

Submitted : May 30, 2017 Decided: June 9, 2017

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Rickey G. Young , Appellant Pro Se. Nathan Henry Schnetzler , FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC , Roanoke, Virginia; Jennifer Dillow Royer , GUYNN & WADDELL P.C. , Salem, Vi rginia; Amy Miles Kowalski , Chad Allan Mooney , PETTY, LIVING S TON, DAWSON & RICHARDS , Lynchburg, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Rickey G. Young appeal s the district court ’ s order de nying his motion for a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. S ee 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (2012). While this interlocutory appeal was pending, Young voluntarily dismissed his civil action in the district court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 1(a)(1)(A)(i). We therefore dismiss Young’s appeal as moot. See CVLR Performance Horses, Inc. v. Wynne , 792 F.3d 469, 474 (4th Cir. 2015) (“ Litigation may become moot during the pendency of an appeal when an intervening event makes it impossible for the court to grant effective relief to the prevailing party. ”). We also deny as moot Young’s motion for
reconsideration of this c ourt’s order denying injunctive relief pending appeal , and we deny Young’s motion to expedite decision

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
§ 45.74 How will DOI analyze a proposed alternative and formulate its modified condition or prescription? ( a ) In deciding whether to accept an alternative proposed under § 45.71 or 45.72, DOI must consider evidence and supporting material provided by any license party or otherwise reasonably available to DOI, including: ( 1 ) Any evidence on the implementation costs or operational impacts for electricity production of the proposed alternative;
( 2 ) Any comments received on DOI's preliminary condition or prescription;
( 3 ) Any ALJ decision on disputed issues of material fact issued under § 45.60 with respect to the preliminary condition or prescription;
( 4 ) Comments received on any draft or final NEPA documents; and
( 5 ) The license party's proposal under § 45.71 or 45.72.
( b ) DOI must accept a proposed alternative if it determines, based on substantial evidence provided by any license party or otherwise reasonably available to DOI, that the alternative: ( 1 ) Will, as compared to DOI's preliminary condition or prescription: ( i ) Cost significantly less to implement; or
( ii ) Result in improved operation of the project works for electricity production; and
( 2 ) Will: ( i ) If a condition, provide for the adequate protection and utilization of the reservation; or
( ii ) If a prescription, be no less protective than DOI's preliminary prescription.
( c ) For purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, DOI will consider evidence and supporting material provided by any license party by the deadline for filing comments on FERC's NEPA document under 18 CFR 5.25(c).
( d ) When DOI files with FERC the condition or prescription that DOI adopts as its modified condition or prescription under § 45.73(a)(2), it must also file: ( 1 ) A written statement explaining: ( i ) The basis for the adopted condition or prescription;
( ii ) If DOI is not accepting any pending alternative, its reasons for not doing so; and
( iii ) If any alternative submitted under § 45.71 was subsequently withdrawn by the license party, that the alternative was withdrawn; and
( 2 ) Any study, data, and other factual information relied on that is not already part of the licensing proceeding record.
( e ) The written statement under paragraph (d)(1) of this section must demonstrate that DOI gave equal consideration to the effects of the condition or prescription adopted and any alternative not accepted on: ( 1 ) Energy supply, distribution, cost, and use;
( 2 ) Flood control;
( 3 ) Navigation;
( 4 ) Water supply;
( 5 ) Air quality; and
( 6 ) Preservation of other aspects of environmental quality.
#### Margaret Wall et al. v. James Kerr et al.

Filed October 5, 1905.

No. 13,929.

Error to the district court for Howard county: John R. Hanna, Judge.

*Dismissed.*

*A. A. Kendallj Frank J. Taylor*and *A.*Wall, for plaintiffs in error.

*W. H.*Thompson, *T. T. Bell*and *Rasmus*Hannibal, *contra.*

Duffie, C.

The plaintiffs in error appealed from an order of the probate court for Howard county admitting to probate the will of Sarah Kerr. A trial was had in the district court, and a verdict returned sustaining the will. An appeal was taken by the contestants to this court.. The transcript shows the verdict and a motion for a new trial, but no order disposing of the motion and no final judgment of the district court appear. For this reason, this court is without jurisdiction to entertain the case, and we recommend a dismissal of the appeal.

Albert and Jackson, CC., concur.

By the Court: For the reasons stated above, the appeal is

Dismissed.
EXHIBIT
32





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 Chancellor Group, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Maxwell
Grant, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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
result of operations of the Company.





/s/ Maxwell GrantMaxwell
      GrantChief
      Executive Officerand
      Principal Financial Officer


November 4,
2009
# Ap pendix 7
I&M Spending Plan - Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009

Object Description Ac tual FY08 Planned FY09 A SA LA RIES 1,118,684.11 $ 1,640,000.00

$ 

### B EMPLOYEE EXPENSES (TRA VEL TRAINING) 4,583.89 $ 20,000.00

$ 

### D PENSION, FRINGE, INSURA NCE 442,127.58 $ 424,000.00

$ 

### E AD MINISTRA TIVE EXPENSES 193,606.82 $ 297,000.00

$ 

### F FACILITY OPERA TIONA L EXPENSES /SUPPLIES - $ 1,000.00

$ 

### G ENERGY COSTS A ND SPACE RENTA L - $ 10,000.00

$ 

### H CONSULTA NT SVCS (TO DEPTS) 681,625.39 $ 1,374,300.00

$ 

### J OPERA

TIONA L SERVICES (TEMPS, TRA NSLA TORS, TRAINERS) - $ 10,000.00

$ 

### K EQUIPMENT PURCHA SE 618.59 $ 10,000.00

$ 

### L EQUIPMENT LEA SE-MAINTAIN/REPA IR 2,416.20 $ 5,000.00

$ 

### U IT NON-PA

YROLL EXPENSES 8,122.38 $ 30,000.00

$
GRA ND TOTA L (I&M Trust only) 2,451,784.96 $ 3,821,300.00

$
CMA Q Ad ditional CMA Q Spending - $ -

$ TOTA L WITH CMA

Q A ND I&M TRUST 2,451,784.96 $ 3,821,300.00

$



### MA SIP Revision, 310 CMR 60.02, the Massachusetts Motor Vehicle

Em issions Inspection and Maintenance Program Documentation of IM SIP Revision consistent with 42 USC Section 7511a

and Section 182 (c)(3)(A) of the Clean Air Act
§ 46.300 Purpose of an environmental assessment and when it must be prepared. The purpose of an environmental assessment is to allow the Responsible Official to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact. ( a ) A bureau must ensure that an environmental assessment is prepared for all proposed Federal actions, except those: ( 1 ) That are covered by a categorical exclusion;
( 2 ) That are covered sufficiently by an earlier environmental document as determined and documented by the Responsible Official; or
( 3 ) For which the bureau has already decided to prepare an environmental impact statement.
( b ) A bureau may prepare an environmental assessment for any proposed action at any time to: ( 1 ) Assist in planning and decision-making;
( 2 ) Further the purposes of NEPA when no environmental impact statement is necessary; or
( 3 ) Facilitate environmental impact statement preparation.
§ 45.30 What will the Hearings Division do with a case referral? Within 5 days after the effective date stated in the referral notice under § 45.26(c)(4), 7 CFR 1.626(c)(4), or 50 CFR 221.26(c)(4): ( a ) The Hearings Division must: ( 1 ) Docket the case;
( 2 ) Assign an ALJ to preside over the hearing process and issue a decision; and
( 3 ) Issue a docketing notice that informs the parties of the docket number and the ALJ assigned to the case; and
( b ) The ALJ must issue a notice setting the time, place, and method for conducting an initial prehearing conference under § 45.40. This notice may be combined with the docketing notice under paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   infomration  extracted  from
     BIOETHICS, LTD. June 30, 1996 financial  statements and is  qualified
     in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                         0000894560
<NAME>                        BIOETHICS, LTD.

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996

<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1996

<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          0
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                   1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (1,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   0
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
        


</TABLE>
1

This case is before us a second time. In United States v. Webster, 442 F.3d

1065, 1069 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 200 (2006), we affirmed Webster's

conviction but vacated his sentence, remanding the case for resentencing in light of

United States v. McCall, 439 F.3d 967, 972 (8th Cir. 2006) (en banc) (holding that

driving while intoxicated is a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act of

1984).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1274

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

v. * Southern District of Iowa.

*

Eric Clark Webster, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: November 13, 2007

Filed: May 8, 2008

___________

Before RILEY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

BOWMAN, Circuit Judge.

Eric Clark Webster was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At resentencing,1

 the District Court determined

that Webster was subject to an enhanced penalty under the Armed Career Criminal

Act of 1984 (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), because he had four prior convictions for
-2-

violent felonies or serious drug offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (imposing a

fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence when a defendant has three previous

convictions for "a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both"). In applying the

ACCA, the District Court considered two Iowa convictions for operating a motor

vehicle while intoxicated (OWI). This application was consistent with United States

v. McCall, 439 F.3d 967, 972 (8th Cir. 2006) (en banc), in which we held that driving

while intoxicated was a violent felony under the ACCA. Because Webster was

deemed an armed career criminal, his base offense level under the sentencing

guidelines increased from 28 to 34, see U.S.S.G. § 4B1.4, and the District Court

resentenced him to 229 months' imprisonment. After the District Court resentenced

Webster, however, the Supreme Court decided Begay v. United States, 128 S. Ct.

1581 (2008). In Begay, the Court held that the crime of driving under the influence

of alcohol is not a violent felony under the ACCA. Id. at 1583. In light of Begay,

McCall is no longer good law on this point, and Webster's two prior felony

convictions for OWI must not be considered in applying the ACCA. We therefore

reverse the sentencing judgment of the District Court and remand the case for

resentencing a second time. 

______________________________
§ 418.22 Future adjustments to Lahontan Reservoir storage targets. ( a ) The Lahontan Reservoir storage targets must be adjusted to accommodate changes in water demand in the Carson Division. Using the information reported by the District by March 1 of each year on eligible land expected to be irrigated and end-of-year data on eligible land actually irrigated (§ 418.9(b)), the Bureau will determine if the Lahontan Reservoir storage targets need to be changed. If no change is needed, the storage targets currently in effect will remain in effect. ( 1 ) Only the actual water demand reported for full water years (100 percent water supply) will be considered. Targets will not be changed based on water demand reported for less than full water years.
( 2 ) All changes in storage targets must start on October 1 of any year. If information provided by March 1 and other available information indicates that the Lahontan Reservoir storage targets must be changed, the new set of storage targets must be applied starting October 1 of the same year and remain in effect until changed according to this section.
( b ) All changes to storage targets will be made according to the table in this section. The table of storage targets has been developed to provide a consistent Project water supply over a range of demands. ( 1 ) A storage target adjustment must be made in increments of thousands of acre-feet for the change as indicated in the column listing Carson Division Demand and the complete set of monthly targets must be applied.
( 2 ) If the change in reported water demand is above or below the values in the table of storage targets, the adjustment to the storage targets can be calculated. The calculated adjustment is the number that would appear in the column Target Adjustment in the table. The calculated Target Adjustment is then added or subtracted to the base storage target for each month. Target Adjustments must be made in whole increments of 1,000 acre-feet and calculated values will be rounded to the nearest 1,000 acre-feet. ( i ) For demands greater than those set forth on the table, the formula for the Target Adjustment is: Target Adjustment = 0.00208 (Demand in acre-feet—271,000 acre-feet). For example, if water demand increased to 292,635 acre-feet per year, the Target Adjustment calculation would be = 0.00208 × (292,535−271,000). The result would be a Target Adjustment of 45 or 45,000 acre-feet. This would be added to the base monthly storage target values so, the January-May target would be 219,000 acre-feet, June would be 235,000 acre-feet, and so on.
( ii ) For demands less than those set forth on the table, the formula for the Target Adjustment is: Target Adjustment = 0.00174 (Demand in acre-feet—271,000 acre-feet). For example, if water demand decreased to 248,011 acre-feet per year, the Target Adjustment calculation would be = 0.00174 × (248,011−271,000). The result would be a Target Adjustment of −40 or −40,000 acre-feet. This would be subtracted from the base monthly storage target values so, the January-May target would be 134,000 acre-feet, June would be 150,000 acre-feet, and so on.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 12, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60667-60668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-22801]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-55,544]


Canteen Vending, Hickory, NC; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on September 2, 2004, in response to a 
worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at 
Canteen Vending, Hickory, North Carolina.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, further investigation would serve no purpose and the 
investigation has been terminated.


[[Page 60668]]


    Signed at Washington, DC, this 28th day of September, 2004.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 04-22801 Filed 10-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF DR CLAUDE POULIN


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




CERTIFICATION




In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Neuro-Biotech
Corp. for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (“Report”), the undersigned, in
the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my 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 operations of the
      Company.


Date:
      November
      15, 2010
                  
                  /s/ Dr Claude
      PoulinDr
      Claude PoulinChief
      Executive Officer
## BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

In the matter of the application of

POLYNESIAN LIMITED

for an emergency exemption pursuant to

49 U.S.C 40109 (g) (Pago Pago

- Manu ’ a Islands) 

### DOCKET DOT

- OST

- 2014

- 0144



## RESPONSE OF INTER ISLAND AIRWAYS, INC. TO APPLICATION

OF POLYNESIAN LIMTED FOR AN EMERERGENCY EXEMPTION

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

Alex Sene, Jr.

President

P.O. Box 4929

Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799

Tel: 1+684+633

- 7002

Fax: 1+684+633

- 5727

Email: alex.sene@interislandair.com

August 27, 2014

### 2 

## BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

In the matter of the application of

POLYNESIAN LIMITED

for an emergency exemption pursuant to

49 U.S.C 40109 (g)

(Pago Pago

- Manu ’ a Islands) 

### DOCKET DOT

- OST

- 2014

- 0144



## RESPON

SE TO APPLICATION FOR AN EMERGENCY EXEMPTION

Inter Island Airways, Inc. does not object to the application by Polynesian Limited

(“Polynesian ”)

, under 49 U.S.C. 40 109 (g) and Subpart C of the Department’s Rules of

Practice, 14 C.F.R. 302,301 for an emergency and time

- limited(90 day s) exemption

authorizing Polynesian to engage in air transportation of persons, property and mail

between Pago Pago, American Samoa and regiona l airports Fitiuta Airport on the island

of Ta’u and the Ofu Airport of the island of Ofu located in the Manu’a Islands of

American Samoa

.

In t er Island Airways, Inc. request s that it be granted an o pportunity to comment should

Polynesian file an exten sion beyond the time

- limited (9 0 days) exemption it is currently

seeking from the Department

.

Respectfully submitted,

__________

__________

_____ ALEX SENE, JR.

President

### 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I here by certify that I have on this 27 th day of August 2014 , the fore going Response of

Inter Island Airways, Inc. to Polynesian has been serviced on this day with the following

individual s via email :

_______________________ Alex Sene, Jr.

President

Charles F. Donley II

Squire, Patton Boggs L.L.P

1201 19 th Street, NW Suite 300

Washington, D.C. 20036



### Email: c harles

. donley@squirepb.com

Counsel for Polynesian Ltd.

Taimalelagi, Dr. Claire Tuia Pou mele , Director

Department of Port Administration

P.O. Box 656

Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799

Email: c laire

. poumele@pa.as.gov