alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S

O F T E X A S

NO. WR-91, 905-01

EX P ART E CHARDE H HAWK I NS, Appl icant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A WRIT OF HAB EA S CORP US

CAUSE NO. 2016CR4911-W1 I N THE 144TH DI STRI CT COURT

F ROM B EX AR COUNTY

P er cur iam

.

O P I N I O N

A ppl i can t was co n v i ct ed o f o n e co un

t o f aggrav at ed ro b b ery an d o n e co un t o f aggra va t ed

as s aul t an d s en t en ced t o f

i f t een y ears ’ i

m pri s o n m en t f o r eac h co un

t

, t o run co n curr en

t l y

. T h e F o urt h

Co urt o f A

ppeal s af f i rm ed h i s co n

v i ct i o n s

. Haw

kins v. State

, No 04-17- 00510-CR (T ex

. A pp. — San

A n t o n i o J ul y 5, 2018) (n o t des i gn at ed f o r pub l i cat i o n ). A

ppl i can t f i l ed t h i s appl i cat i o n f

o r a wri t o f

h ab eas co rpus i

n t h e co un

t y o f co n v i ct i o n

, an d t h e di s t ri ct cl erk f o rwarded i

t t o t h i s Co urt

. See T E X

.

C O D E C R I M

. P R O C

. art

. 11. 07.

A ppl i can t co n t en ds

, am o n g o t h er t h i

n gs

, t h at b o t h t ri al co un s el an d appel l at e co un s el were

i n ef f ect i v e b eca us e n ei t h er argued t h at A

ppl i can t ’ s co n v i ct i o n o f b o t h aggrav at ed ro b b ery b y caus i n g

b o di l y i n j ury an d aggrav at ed as s aul t caus i n g b o di l y i n j ury o f t h e sam

e co m pl ai n an t duri n g t h e s am

e2

i nc i den t v i o l at ed t h e pro h i

b i t i o n o n do ub l e j eo pardy

. Ba s ed o n t h e reco rd, t h e t ri al co urt ha s

det erm i n ed t h at b o t h t ri al an d appel l at e co un s el ’ s perf o rm an ce was def

i ci en t an d t h at A

ppl i can t was

prej udi ced.

Re l i ef i s gran

t ed. Stric kland v. W

as hington

, 466 U.S

. 668 (1984)

. T h e j udgm en t i n caus e

n um b er 2 0 16CR

4911 i n t h e 144t h Di s t ri ct Co urt o f Be x ar Co un t y as i t pert ai n s t o co un

t t wo

,

A ppl i can t ' s aggrav at ed as s aul

t co n v i ct i o n

, i s s et as i de. A l l rel i ef reques t ed as t o co un t o n e i s den i ed.

Co pi es o f t h i s o pi

n i o n s h al l b e s en

t t o t h e T ex as Depa

rt m en t o f Cri m i n al J us t i ce–C o rr ect i o n al

In s t i t ut i o n s Di v i s i o n an d t h e Bo ard o f Pardo n s an d Paro l es

.

Del i v ered: J an

uary 27, 2021

Do n o t pub l i s h
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

MIAMI DIVISION 

MARK E. MUNRO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No.: 1:20-cv-22153-KMW 

I.C. SYSTEM, INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

 /

 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

COMES NOW Peter J. Grilli, Esq., and notices his appearance as Mediator 

in this matter. 

Done September 16, 2020 in Tampa, Florida. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Peter J. Grilli 

 Peter J. Grilli, Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 237851 

Mediator 

3001 West Azeele Street 

Tampa, Florida 33609 

813.874.1002 Fax: 813.874.1131 

email: peter@grillimediation.com 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that September 16, 2020 I electronically filed the 

foregoing document with the United States District Court Electronic Case 

Filing system, which will electronically send copies to counsel of record. 

/s/ Peter J. Grilli 

Peter J. Grilli, Esq.

Case 1:20-cv-22153-KMW Document 21 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/16/2020 Page 1 of 1
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-41086

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

JASON BAICE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(1:97-CR-16-1)

 

April 20, 1999

Before GARWOOD, DAVIS and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The only issue presented in this case is whether the district

court committed reversible error in failing to advise the defendant

that the firearm count to which he pled guilty carried a mandatory

minimum sentence of sixty months. The district court informed the

defendant that this count carried a possible sentence of sixty

months and that the related, more serious, carjacking count
2

carried a maximum sentence of 240 months. The district court

informed the defendant that on both counts he faced a maximum

possible sentence of imprisonment of 300 months plus an additional

sixty months supervised release. The district court then imposed

a total sentence of 211 months, 151 months on the carjacking count

and sixty months on the weapons offense plus a sixty-month

supervised release term.

We conclude from our review of the record as a whole that the

court’s failure to advise of the mandatory minimum sentence of

sixty months on the weapons offense did not influence the

defendant’s decision to enter his guilty plea. Because the court

did not commit reversible error, the sentence is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 3284.1 What general standards apply to operations within a unit?

All unit operations must comply with:

(a) The terms and conditions of the unit agreement; and

(b) The standards and orders listed in the following chart:

| Type of operation | Regulations on Operational Standards (43 CFR) | Regulations on Orders or Instructions (43 CFR) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Exploration | § 3250.12 | § 3250.13 |
| Drilling | § 3260.11 | § 3260.12 |
| Production or Utilization | § 3270.11 | § 3270.12 |
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsThermal and orbital analysis of Earth monitoring Sun-synchronous space experimentsThe fundamentals of an Earth monitoring Sun-synchronous orbit are presented. A Sun-synchronous Orbit Analysis Program (SOAP) was developed to calculate orbital parameters for an entire year. The output from this program provides the required input data for the TRASYS thermal radiation computer code, which in turn computes the infrared, solar and Earth albedo heat fluxes incident on a space experiment. Direct incident heat fluxes can be used as input to a generalized thermal analyzer program to size radiators and predict instrument operating temperatures. The SOAP computer code and its application to the thermal analysis methodology presented, should prove useful to the thermal engineer during the design phases of Earth monitoring Sun-synchronous space experiments.Document ID19900015852Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsKillough, Brian D.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateMay 1, 1990Subject CategorySpacecraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.15:101630NASA-TM-101630Accession Number90N25168Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 413-18-06-10Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900015852.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
# OUTPUT

Schedule A-8Page &P of &N

# Footnotes

Schedule A-8Page &P of &N
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 28, 2013

p0520 

# Order

Clerk May 28, 2013

146556

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146556

COA: 307134

Jackson CC: 11

- 004231

- FH

SEAN CLARK,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 27, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we ar e not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
(No. 1139

Claimant awarded $246.00.)

#### Jerry Laurie, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 12,*1927.

Respondeat *superior*— State *not liable. Employees.*The State is not liable for injuries sustained by its employees in the discharge of their duty.

Equity and- good *conscience*— award *may he made.*An award may he made to a State employee who is injured while in the performance of his duty, as a matter of equity and good conscience.

Angerstein & Schneider, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; Roy D. Johnson, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim filed by Jerry Laurie, to recover on account of an injury sustained by him while in the employ of the State of Illinois. The declaration filed alleges that oh August 25, 1926, while claimant was in the employ of the State of Illinois, in the capacity of clerk in the Department of Labor in the Illinois Industrial Commission, 139 North Clark street, Chicago, Illinois, and while in the pursuance of his duties as clerk of the Illinois Industrial Commission, while lifting a box of stationery weighing about 300 pounds, he sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, in that he ruptured himself, and that he duly notified William F. Scanlan, chairman of the Industrial Commission, that he had so ruptured himself, within fifteen days after the occurrence of said accident; that he also notified his superior, *377W. W. Baldwin, and that there were two witnesses to his said accident, namely, W. W. Baldwin and Henry Plattner, both employees of the Industrial Commission of the State of Illinois; that thereafter said claimant was operated on by Dr. Ira Boyd Robinson, on September 13,1926; that he was necessarily in the hospital from September 13, 1926, to September 26, 1926, and was confined to his home, for four, weeks; that for the operation and the after treatment he was charged the sum of $150.00 by his physician and surgeon above mentioned and that his hospital expenses in the Jefferson Park Hospital' in the city of Chicago were the sum of $96.00, and he makes claim for $246.00.

The State of Illinois by the Attorney G-eneral has filed a demurrer, which is sustained, as a matter of law.

While there is no legal obligation on the part of the State of Illinois to make an award in this case, in equity and good conscience we award claimant the sum of $246.00, the amount which he would be entitled to receive were he employed under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of the State of Illinois.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-14159-CIV-ROSENBERG/MAYNARD

DJ LINCOLN ENTERPRISES, INC., 

Plaintiff(s), 

v.

GOOGLE, LLC, 

Defendant(s). 

_______________________ _____/ 

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY STATUS CONFERENCE

and 

ORDER REQUIRING JOINT DISCOVERY STATUS REPORT

THIS CAUSE comes before this Court upon an Order of Reference. It is hereby, 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that U.S. Magistrate Judge Shaniek M. Maynard in the 

Fort Pierce Division will hold a final Discovery Status Conference on THURSDAY, OCTOBER 

29, 2020 at 3:00 PM. It is a telephonic hearing. The call-in conference number is (888) 

684-8852, and the access code is 5312437. It is further, 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that by MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2020 the parties

shall file a Joint Discovery Status Report that addresses the following: 

a) what discovery has been propounded by each party;

b) whether the discovery requests have been answered;

c) the status of depositions, including:

1. the number of depositions already taken;

2. the number of remaining depositions and whether they have been scheduled;

and

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 1 of 2
2 of 2

3. an explanation of any delay in scheduling the remaining depositions;

d) the status of expert disclosures;

e) whether there are any outstanding discovery disputes;

f) whether the parties believe that a discovery status conference is needed and whether it 

may be canceled; and

g) whether the parties can certify that all discovery will be completed by the discovery 

deadline.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Pierce, Florida, this 20th day of August, 

2020.

 ___________________________________

 SHANIEK M. MAYNARD

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-14159-RLR Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/21/2020 Page 2 of 2
a- ïf5A

CASENO.1:20-CV-21851-CMA

FILED BY .C.

/

ALC 72222

ANGELAE.NOBLE

CLEBKUS DIS;C'D

s.n.oFiuk.-MIAMI

ToAngelaE.Noble

CLERKOFCOURT

OnM arch8th2020,

circum stance.

ofustojoinhim ontheBoat.Sowhile

Iwasoutforthedayaccom panied Christian,

Christianwasinvitedbydefendantwhoow nstheboatdefendantJoseGarciainvitedaIl

wewereenjoyingtheboatWethenproceeded

CasaBlancaRestaurant.Defendantparktheboatatthe ducksofCasaBlanca.Afterdinnertheywere

tryingtofigureouthow to paythe bil.W hiletheyweredecidingonhow topaythebill,Stephanieand l

decidedto IeavewetoldJoseGarciaandChristianwewilbewaitingforthem intheboat.W hilewe

werewaitingontheboatlwastellingStephanythestoryofhow lgotmycardriver'sIicenseinmy

countrybyexplainingwhichwasinsim ilaritytothesteeringw heelofJoseGarcia'sboat.The boats

w heel.Itrem indedmeofasim ulator

tohavedinnerat

lmetagirlwhoisalso aw itnesstothis

thattheboatwason.JoseGarcia'scaptainParkedtheboatlhad no idea

Idid notknow orwasaware

heIefthisboatrunning.

thewheelandthe

and notblam e

boatstartedm ovingbyitselfJose

meforthissituation.Theboatmovedandlwasnotoperatingthisboatordrivingthis

boat.Thisisacom pletedefam ation

happen

anYone

ofcharacters'bandslanderbecausewhattheyaresaying

touchthem orharm

and it'slie.Asfarastheyareclaim ingto

else.Iam notresponsible

haveinjuriestheboatdidnot

forthisboatbeingleftturnedon.Theboatwasleftonandrunning

w ithoutm yknowledgeatal.lalso haveawitnessthatcantestifytothison mybehalf.AIItheseyearsl

haveneverbeeninanytroublew iththe policeoram Iacrim inaloradrunkperson.IonlydrinksociallyI

do notbreakorviolatelaws.lhave nocriminalrecord ofanykind.1haveneverbeenservedthrough

M ariaGom ezldon'thaveacovresidenceIdon'tknow who M ariaGom ezislcanprovethisso this

informationisfalse.ljustwanttbeopportunitytoprovemyinnocenceandtodefendmyselfbecause

alItheseaccusationsarefakesuntrueandnotthe realstoryofwhattookplace inthism atter.

didnot

Itwastotallyunintentional,notmaliciousacompleteaccidentasljustm oved

hastotakeaccountabilityforthiscarelessm istake

Thankyou

Alison DillonTorres

August17,2020

Case 1:20-cv-21859-CMA Document 100 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/18/2020 Page 1 of 1
§ 404.43 What process will Reclamation follow to determine if an appraisal investigation is ready for review? ( a ) Reclamation will evaluate whether the appraisal investigation adequately addresses all of the items required in Reclamation's standards for conducting appraisal investigations, and is, therefore ready for review. Reclamation standards and requirements for the content of an appraisal investigation are available at your local Reclamation office. Reclamation will notify you in writing of the outcome of this determination within 90 business days from the date of Reclamation's receipt of the appraisal investigation;
( b ) If the appraisal investigation does not include the required information, you will be notified in writing of the reasons why, and you will have an opportunity to make changes and re-submit the corrected appraisal investigation to Reclamation for additional review. As appropriate, Reclamation will work with you to suggest approaches to correct the appraisal investigation;
( c ) Once Reclamation determines that the appraisal investigation includes all of the required information, Reclamation will review the investigation to determine, based on an application of the criteria set forth in § 404.44, whether or not it is appropriate to proceed to a feasibility study. Reclamation will document its findings in an appraisal report, as described in § 404.45;
( d ) Reclamation's review of an appraisal investigation will take no longer than 180 business days from its receipt of the appraisal investigation to its completion of the appraisal report, excluding time when Reclamation is waiting for additional information from the project sponsor.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7393

DOMINIC JARAMILLO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

PATRICIA R. STRANSBERRY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief

District Judge. (CA-05-356-5-FL)

Submitted: May 16, 2006 Decided: May 19, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dominic Jaramillo, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Dominic Jaramillo, a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the

district court. See Jaramillo v. Stransberry, No. CA-05-356-5-FL

(E.D.N.C. filed July 11, 2005 & entered July 14, 2005). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Days in Effect Days in Effect

Year Term 91 Dates Between 4/1 and 10/31 Between 6/1 and 8/31

1990 5/14 - 8/31 109 92

1991 6/10 - 8/31 82 82

1992 5/21 - 11/16 163 92

1993 7/27 - 8/31 35 35

1994 6/15 - 8/31 77 77

1995 None 0 0

1996 7/22 - 8/20 29 29

1997 6/18 - 8/24 67 67

1998 None 0 0

1999 6/29 - 8/18 50 50

2000 6/28 - 8/16 49 49

2001 6/4 - 8/31 88 88

2002 6/17 - 8/31 75 75

824 736

April - October4/1 - 10/31 = 213 days X 13 years = 2,769 possible days

824 / 2769 = .2976

June - August: 6/1 - 8/31 = 92 days X 13 years = 1,196 possible days

736 / 1,196 = .6154

Conclusion:

Term 91 was in effect 30% of the time between April 1 and October 31 from 1990 through

Term 91 was in effect 62% of the time between June 1 and August 31 from 1990 through 2

Analysis of Term 91 Effective Dates
<PAGE>


                                                                  EXHIBIT 10 (e)

                  AMENDMENT TO LOAN SUBPARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
                  --------------------------------------------

         THIS AMENDMENT TO LOAN SUBPARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is
made as of May 16, 2001, between HUNTINGTON PREFERRED CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC., an
Indiana corporation ("Transferor") and HUNTINGTON PREFERRED CAPITAL, INC., an
Ohio corporation ("Transferee").

                                    RECITALS
                                    --------

         A. The parties have previously entered into a certain Loan
Subparticipation Agreement, dated as of May 1, 1998 (the "Subparticipation
Agreement"). (All capitalized terms used in this Amendment and not otherwise
defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the
Subparticipation Agreement.)

         B. The Subparticipation Agreement was made in connection with a certain
Loan Participation Agreement, also dated as of May 1, 1998, between The
Huntington National Bank (the "Bank") and Transferor (the "Participation
Agreement").

         C. The parties desire to modify the Subparticipation Agreement as set
forth in this Amendment.

                                    AGREEMENT
                                    ---------

         The parties hereby agree as follows:

         1. The Subparticipation Agreement is hereby modified and amended,
effective as of the date hereof, by inserting a new paragraph 14 consisting of
the following:

         "14. AMENDMENTS TO PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT. The Participation Agreement
         may not be amended, altered or modified without the written consent of
         Transferee."

         2. Except as specifically modified and amended herein, the
Subparticipation Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the
date set forth above.


                                     HUNTINGTON PREFERRED CAPITAL HOLDINGS, INC.


                                     By:  /s/ GREGORY C. SHERIDAN
                                          ----------------------------------
                                          Gregory C. Sheridan, President

                                     HUNTINGTON PREFERRED CAPITAL, INC.


                                     By:  /s/ STEVEN A. HINSHAW
                                          ----------------------------------
                                          Steven A. Hinshaw, Vice President
§ 4.1360 Scope. These rules set forth the exclusive procedures for administrative review of decisions by OSMRE concerning— ( a ) Applications for new permits, including applications under 30 CFR part 785, and the terms and conditions imposed or not imposed in permits by those decisions. They do not apply to decisions on applications to mine on Federal lands in states where the terms of a cooperative agreement provide for the applicability of alternative administrative procedures (see 30 CFR 775.11(c)), but they do apply to OSMRE decisions on applications for Federal lands in states with cooperative agreements where OSMRE as well as the state issue Federal lands permits;
( b ) Applications for permit revisions, permit renewals, and the transfer, assignment, or sale of rights granted under permit;
( c ) Permit revisions ordered by OSMRE;
( d ) Applications for coal exploration permits; and
( e ) Ineligibility for a permit under section 510(c) of the Act and 30 CFR 773.12.
[56 FR 2143, Jan. 22, 1991; 56 FR 5061, Feb. 7, 1991, as amended at 67 FR 61511, Oct. 1, 2002]