alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-82,911-01

EX PARTE FRANCISCO DURAN, JR, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2012-DCR-867-I IN THE 445th DISTRICT COURT

FROM CAMERON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of burglary of a

habitation with intent to commit aggravated assault and sentenced to twenty-five years’

imprisonment. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Duran v. State, No. 13-12-

00344-CR (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg July 3, 2013) (not designated for publication). 

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to advise him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. 
2

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit, the trial court

has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to advise Applicant 

of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. The trial court recommends that relief

be granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition

for discretionary review of the judgment of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals in Cause No. 13-12-

00344-CR that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 2012-DCR-867-Ifrom the 445th District Court

of Cameron County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with this Court within

30 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: March 25, 2015

Do not publish
No: 23-069 October 31, 2023 

CONTACT: Scott Burnell, 301-415-8200 

NRC Staff Approves License Transfer for South Texas Project

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has approved the transfer of licenses for South 

Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, and its associated spent fuel storage facility from NRG South Texas 

to Constellation Energy Generation. 

The transfer is part of Constellation’s planned acquisition of NRG South Texas and its 

44 percent ownership interest in the plant, which is located in Bay City, Texas, approximately 

90 miles southwest of Houston. There are two other licensed owners with minority interests. The 

plant will continue to be operated by STP Nuclear Operating Co. on behalf of the three coowners. 

The NRC staff’s review of the license transfer application concluded that Constellation 

was financially qualified to be a licensed owner and would continue to provide reasonable 

assurance that funds will be available to eventually decommission the plant. 

There is a hearing request currently pending before the Commission. The transfer 

approval is subject to the Commission’s authority to rescind, modify, or condition the transfer 

based on the outcome of any subsequent hearing on the application.
Skip to global NPS navigation
Skip to the main content
Skip to the footer section






National Park Service Search Search
This Site
All NPS
 Open
Menu
Close
Menu
Explore This Park
Explore the National Park Service


Exiting nps.gov
  Cancel


Rivers





Contact Us
  Boating
 Sail boat with island and clouds in the background.
 
 Sort By:RelevanceRecently UpdatedTitle
 Show1040 per page
   boating river paddle
 Last updated: November 22, 2017
 Tools Calendar
Site Index


This Site
All NPS 
  National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
 Accessibility
Privacy Policy
FOIA
Notices
Contact The National Park Service NPS FAQ
No Fear Act
Disclaimer
Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
USA.gov Facebook
Youtube
Twitter
Instagram
Flickr
No: II-23-001 January 5, 2023

Contact: Dave Gasperson 404-997-4417

NRC Announces Resident Inspectors at McGuire Nuclear Station

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in Atlanta have selected Chris 

Safouri as the agency’s senior resident inspector and Frank Young as the 

resident inspector at Duke Energy’s McGuire nuclear power plant, located in 

Huntersville, North Carolina.

Safouri joined the NRC in 2015 as a reactor engineer in the Division of 

Reactor Projects under the Nuclear Safety Professional Development Program

in the NRC’s Region I office in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. He served as an 

acting resident inspector at the Indian Point nuclear power plant in New York 

and the Limerick nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania before being assigned as the resident 

inspector of the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. 

During his seven years with the agency, Safouri has served as an acting resident and senior 

resident inspector at multiple plants in the southeast, including a 15-month assignment as the 

interim senior resident inspector at the Vogtle plant. Safouri holds a bachelor’s and a master’s 

degree in nuclear and radiological engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Young joined the NRC in 2022 as a project engineer in the Resident 

Inspector Development Program in the agency's Region II office in Atlanta. 

Before joining the NRC, he spent nearly a decade as an engineer with the Puget 

Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington, managing the maintenance 

periods for many of the U.S. Navy's nuclear-powered warships.

Young earned a bachelor's degree in chemical engineering from Auburn 

University.

“Chris and Frank are an outstanding team of inspectors who will serve as the agency’s eyes 

and ears at the McGuire nuclear power plant,” said NRC Region II Administrator Laura Dudes. 

“They bring different technical and professional experiences and will complement one another as 

they carry out our inspection program, assuring the McGuire plant continues to operate safely.”

The NRC assigns at least two resident inspectors to each operating U.S. commercial nuclear 

power plant. They conduct regular inspections, monitor plant operations and major work projects,

and interact with plant workers and the public.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-98-119 October 27, 1998

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

GPU TO BRIEF NRC STAFF ON OYSTER CREEK SHUTDOWN PLANNING

Representatives of GPU Nuclear Inc. will provide Nuclear Regulatory Commission

staff with a presentation on planning for the possible permanent shutdown of the Oyster

Creek nuclear power plant on Tuesday, November 3. GPU owns and operates Oyster

Creek, a boiling-water reactor located in Lacey Township, N.J.

The presentation, which will also cover decommissioning activities that would take

place if a decision is made to close the facility, will begin at 1 p.m. in Room 3-B-2 at

NRC headquarters, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. It will be open to the public for

observation.

GPU announced in July that its efforts to sell Oyster Creek had been

unsuccessful. Consequently, the company said it planned to either retire the plant early

-- in 2000 -- or operate it until its NRC license expires in December 2009. A final

determination will be made after the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities issues a

decision regarding GPU’s restructuring filing related to the deregulation of the electricity

market, the company has said.

#
Exhibit 8



List
of Subsidiaries



|Name of Subsidiary                     |  | Jurisdiction
    of Incorporation
|-------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------
|InSync Staffing Services, Inc.         |  | Delaware                         
|                                       |  |                                  
|Matrix IT Ltd.                         |  | Israel                           
|                                       |  |                                  
|Magic Software Enterprises Ltd.        |  | Israel                           
|                                       |  |                                  
|Michpal Micro Computers (1983) Ltd.    |  | Israel                           
|                                       |  |                                  
|Sapiens International Corporation N.V. |  | Curaçao                          
|                                       |  |                                  
|TSG Advanced IT Systems, Ltd           |  | Israel
#### In the Matter of William W. Farley, as State Commissioner of Excise, Respondent, for an Order Revoking and Canceling Liquor Certificate No. 4,768 Issued to Gustav Schultz, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, on opinion of Greenbaum, J. (Reported in 84 Misc. Rep. 594.) Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### §216b. Liability for overtime work performed prior to July 20, 1949

No employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended [29 U.S.C. 201 et seq.] (in any action or proceeding commenced prior to or on or after January 24, 1950), on account of the failure of said employer to pay an employee compensation for any period of overtime work performed prior to July 20, 1949, if the compensation paid prior to July 20, 1949, for such work was at least equal to the compensation which would have been payable for such work had section 7(d)(6) and (7) and section 7(g) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended [29 U.S.C. 207(d)(6), (7), (g)], been in effect at the time of such payment.

(Oct. 26, 1949, ch. 736, §16(e), 63 Stat. 920.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, referred to in text, is act June 25, 1938, ch. 676, 52 Stat. 1060, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 201 of this title and Tables.

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Fair Labor Standards Amendments of 1949, and not as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 which comprises this chapter.

"January 24, 1950" substituted in text for "the effective date of this Act". See Effective Date of 1949 Amendment note set out under section 202 of this title.
---

---

Exhibit 13.1

# 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 Annual Report on Form 20-F of Formula Systems (1985) Ltd. (the
Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the
undersigned, Gad Goldstein, President and Chief Executive Officer, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

|Date: June 29, 2007 |  | /s/ Gad Goldstein
Gad GoldsteinPresident and Chief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)
|------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-81080-CIV-DIMITROULEAS

THE 2100 CONDOMINIUM

ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel Appraisal and to 

Stay Litigation [DE 18] and the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William 

Matthewman [DE 28], issued on October 22, 2020. The Court notes that no objections to the 

Report [DE 28] have been filed, and the time for filing such objections has passed. As no 

timely objections were filed, the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings in the Report [DE 28] are 

hereby adopted and deemed incorporated into this opinion. LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 

749-50 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 958 (1988); RTC v. Hallmark Builders, Inc., 996 

F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993). 

 Although no timely objections were filed, the Court has conducted a de novo review of 

the Report [DE 28] and record and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court agrees 

with the Magistrate Judge’s analysis and conclusions. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Report [DE 28] is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED;

Case 9:20-cv-81080-WPD Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 1 of 2
2

2. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Appraisal and to Stay Litigation [DE 18] is hereby 

GRANTED;

3. The Clerk is DIRECTED to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case during the 

pendency of the appraisal;

4. The parties shall file joint status reports on March 1, 2021, and every ninety (90) days 

thereafter regarding the status of the appraisal process. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, 

this 13th day of November, 2020. 

Copies furnished to:

Magistrate Judge Matthewman

Counsel of record

Case 9:20-cv-81080-WPD Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/13/2020 Page 2 of 2
Overview

The Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP), administered 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency 

(FSA), provides payments to eligible owners of nonindustrial private 

forest (NIPF) land in order to carry out emergency measures to 

restore land damaged by a natural disaster.

How to Apply

EFRP enrollment is administered by FSA state and county committees and county offices. Producers should inquire with their local 

FSA county office regarding EFRP enrollment periods and eligibility.

How it Works

FSA county committees determine land eligibility using on-site 

damage inspections that assess the type and extent of damage. 

To be eligible for EFRP, NIPF land must:

• Have existing tree cover (or had tree cover immediately before 

the natural disaster occurred and is suitable for growing trees); 

and

• Be owned by any nonindustrial private individual, group, 

association, corporation, or other private legal entity.

Cost-Share Payments

Cost-share payments are:

• Up to 75 percent of the cost to implement approved restoration 

practices; and

• Limited to $500,000 per person or legal entity per disaster.

Eligible Forest Restoration Practices

To restore NIPF, EFRP participants may implement emergency forest 

restoration practices, such as:

• Debris removal, such as down or damaged trees, in order to 

establish a new stand or provide for natural regeneration;

• Site preparation, planting materials, and labor to replant forest 

stand;

• Restoration of forestland roads, fire lanes, fuel breaks, or 

erosion control structures;

• Fencing, tree shelters, and tree tubes to protect trees from 

wildlife damage; and

• Wildlife enhancement to provide 

For More Information

This fact sheet is for informational purposes 

only; other restrictions may apply. For more 

information about FSA disaster programs, 

visit http://disaster.fsa.usda.gov or contact 

your local FSA office. To find your local FSA 

office, visit http://offices.usda.gov.

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP)

FARM SERVICE AGENCY

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

DISASTER ASSISTANCE
### §§1661 to 1661f. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–220, title I, §199(b)(2), Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1059

Section 1661, Pub. L. 97–300, title III, §311, as added Pub. L. 100–418, title VI, §6302(a), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1527; amended Pub. L. 102–367, title I, §115(b), title VII, §702(a)(12), Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1034, 1112; Pub. L. 102–484, div. D, title XLIV, §4467(a), Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2750, related to State plans.

Section 1661a, Pub. L. 97–300, title III, §312, as added Pub. L. 100–418, title VI, §6302(a), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1529, related to substate grantees.

Section 1661b, Pub. L. 97–300, title III, §313, as added Pub. L. 100–418, title VI, §6302(a), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1531, related to substate plans.

Section 1661c, Pub. L. 97–300, title III, §314, as added Pub. L. 100–418, title VI, §6302(a), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1532; amended Pub. L. 101–392, §5(a)(3), Sept. 25, 1990, 104 Stat. 759; Pub. L. 102–367, title III, §301, Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1073; Pub. L. 102–484, div. D, title XLIV, §4467(b)–(d), Oct. 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 2750, related to use of funds and services to be provided.

Section 1661d, Pub. L. 97–300, title III, §315, as added Pub. L. 100–418, title VI, §6302(a), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1535; amended Pub. L. 102–367, title III, §302, Sept. 7, 1992, 106 Stat. 1073, related to limitation on uses of funds.

Section 1661e, Pub. L. 97–300, title III, §316, as added Pub. L. 100–418, title VI, §6302(a), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1535, related to retraining services availability.

Section 1661f, Pub. L. 97–300, title III, §317, as added Pub. L. 100–418, title VI, §6302(a), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1536, related to functions of State job training coordinating council.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective July 1, 2000, see section 199(c)(2)(B) of Pub. L. 105–220, set out as a note under section 1501 of this title.
§ 305.2 Award requirements. ( a ) *Project scope.* Public Works Investments may fund the following activities: ( 1 ) Acquisition or development of land and improvements for use in a public works, public service or other type of development facility; or
( 2 ) Acquisition, design and engineering, construction, rehabilitation, alteration, expansion, or improvement of such a facility, including related machinery and equipment.
( b ) *Requirements.* A Public Works Investment may be made if EDA determines that: ( 1 ) The Project will, directly or indirectly: ( i ) Improve the opportunities for the successful establishment or expansion of industrial or commercial plants or facilities in the Region where the Project is located;
( ii ) Assist in the creation of additional long-term employment opportunities in the Region; or
( iii ) Primarily benefit the long-term unemployed and members of low-income families in the Region;
( 2 ) The Project will fulfill a pressing need of the Region, or a part of the Region, in which the Project is located; and
( 3 ) The Region in which the Project is located has a CEDS and the Project is consistent with the CEDS.
( c ) Not more than 15 percent of the annual appropriations made available to EDA to fund Public Works Investments may be made in any one State.
[71 FR 56675, Sept. 27, 2006, as amended at 79 FR 76131, Dec. 19, 2014]
Exhibit 31.5



CERTIFICATION



I, Dale E. Parker, President of WTA Inc., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K WTA Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:



a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report and based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                     |  |                      
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------
|Date: March 31, 2004
|                     | 
|Signature:           |  | /S/    DALE E. PARKER
|                     |  |                      
|                     |  | Dale E. Parker       
|                     |  | President