alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Nos. WR-61,939-01 and WR-61,939-02

IN RE DAVID DOW AND

JEFFREY R. NEWBERRY,

Respondents.

__________________________________________

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY OF RECORD

___________________________________________

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL

APPEALS:

Now comes David Dow and Jeffrey Newberry by and through their

attorneys and respectfully requests this Court to permit and substitute in their stead

Stanley G. Schneider, Nicole DeBorde and Casie L. Gotro as attorneys of record

for Respondents, David Dow and Jeffrey Newberry, and would show this Court as

follows:

I.

Respondents herein feel that it is in their best interest to have Stanley G.

Schneider, Nicole DeBorde and Casie L. Gotro represent them in this case.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, your movants ask that this

Honorable Court to substitute in their stead Stanley G. Schneider, Nicole DeBorde

and Casie L. Gotro as attorney of records for Respondents.

1

WR-61,939-02

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 1/29/2015 4:32:01 PM

Accepted 1/30/2015 9:01:45 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

 RECEIVED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 1/30/2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK 
Respectfully Submitted,

SCHNEIDER & McKINNEY, P.C.

 /s/ Stanley G. Schneider 

Stanley G. Schneider

T.B.C. No. 17790500

440 Louisiana

Suite 800

Houston, Texas 77002

Office: 713-951-9994

Fax: 713-224-6008

Email: stans3112@aol.com

NICOLE DeBORDE

712 Main St., Ste 2400

Houston, Texas 77002

Office: 713-526-6300

Fax: 713-228-0034

Email: nicole@debordelawfirm.com

CASIE L. GOTRO

TBN: 24048505

440 Louisiana, Suite 800

Houston, Texas 77002

Office: 832-368-9281

Fax: 832-201-8273 

Email: casie.gotro@gmail.com

2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the attached and foregoing

Motion has been mailed and/or hand delivered to the following listed below on this

28th day of January, 2015.

1. Edward L. Marshall

Assistant Attorney General

PO Box 12548

Austin, Texas 78711

2. 399th District Court – Presiding Judge

300 Dolorosa St., 1st floor

San Antonio, Texas 78205

3. Bexar County District Clerk

101 W. Nueva, Suite 217

San Antonio, Texas 78205

4. Bexar Co. District Attorney

101 W. Nueva, 4th floor

San Antonio, Texas 78205

5. Michael C. Gross

Attorney at Law

106 S. Saint Mary’s, Suite 260

San Antonio, Texas 78205

 /s/ Stanley G. Schneider 

Stanley G. Schneider

3
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-98-42 April 17, 1998

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

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NRC STAFF TO MEET WITH RADIOGRAPHY FIRM TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Thielsch

Engineering, Inc, representatives on Tuesday, April 21, to discuss

apparent violations of NRC requirements. The predecisional

enforcement conference is open to the public and will be held in the

NRC’s Region I office in King of Prussia, PA. The conference begins

at 1:00 p.m.

Thielsch Engineering of Cranston, RI, is licensed by the state of

Rhode Island to perform radiography at temporary job sites in that

state. Rhode Island is an “agreement state” - a state which has

entered into an agreement with the NRC to license the uses of byproduct materials in that state.

On March 9, NRC’s inspectors conducted an inspection of the

Thielsch’ activities while the company was performing radiography at

Bridgeport Rescoe, a cogeneration facility in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

During the course of that inspection, the NRC staff found two

apparent violations of NRC requirements: the failure to keep

unauthorized individuals out of the restricted area; and the failure

to file the proper paperwork to perform license activities in an NRCregulated state.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does

not mean that the NRC has determined that a violation has occurred or

that enforcement action will be taken. Rather, the purpose is to

discuss apparent violations, their causes and safety significance; to

provide the licensee an opportunity to point out any errors that may

have been made in the NRC inspection report; and to enable the

licensee to outline its proposed corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violations will be made at this

conference. Those decisions will be made by senior NRC officials at a

later time.

#
§ 72.5 Exemptions. Requesters are exempt from submitting review and processing fees for: ( a ) Requests for map changes based on mapping or study analysis errors;
( b ) Requests for map changes based on the effects of natural changes within SFHAs;
( c ) Requests for a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA);
( d ) Requests for map changes based on federally sponsored flood-control projects where 50 percent or more of the project's costs are federally funded;
( e ) Requests for map changes based on detailed hydrologic and hydraulic studies conducted by Federal, State, or local agencies to replace approximate studies conducted by FEMA and shown on the effective FIRM; and
( f ) Requests for map changes based on flood hazard information meant to improve upon that shown on the flood map or within the flood study will be exempt from review and processing fees. Improvements to flood maps or studies that partially or wholly incorporate man-made modifications within the special flood hazard area will not be exempt from review and processing fees.
[64 FR 51462, Sept. 23, 1999]
Pincushion Mountain Ski Area

1.43

1.63

0.78

0.83

0.6

0.62

0.59

0.47

0.77

0.49

0.48

0.53

0.39

0.37

0.68

0.34

0.96

0.51

0.81

1.09

0.84

0.2

0.35

0.52

0.24

0.19

0.15

0.14

0.13

0.06

0.37

0.77

0.37

0.37

0.49

0.39

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Kilometers

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Miles

A

B

C

D

F

E

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

12

52

64

Lynn's 

Loop

Upper

Snowman

Lower

Snowman

North

Advanced

North

Advanced

North

Advanced

West Overlook

East

Overlook

Pincushion Mt Loop

Pincushion Mt Loop

Hilfiker

Hill

Ole

Hyvaa

Canyon Curves

This is a georeferenced map for use with wayfinding apps such as Avenza. 

It may also be used as a standard hard copy map. For more information 

regarding skiing at Pincushion, see the Superior National Forest's 

Recreational Opportunity Guide available online at 

www.fs.usda.gov/activity/superior/recreation/wintersports 

Digital maps are not intended as primary sources of navigation. Always 

bring a hard copy map with you. Batteries will go dead, especially in cold 

weather.

The USDA Forest Service uses the most current and complete data 

available. GIS data and product accuracy may vary. Using GIS products for 

purposes other than those for which they were intended may yield 

inaccurate or misleading results. The USDA Forest Service reserves the 

right to correct, update, modify or replace GIS products without notification. 

The USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
### -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

34 36 38 40 42 

## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 07/11 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 11 Jul 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 39.41 N 76.30 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40882 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHNNY MORALES, also known as Johnny Anthony Morales, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-97-CR-75-1

- - - - - - - - - - April 10, 1998 Before JOLLY, JONES, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Johnny Morales, whose real name is Enrique Sifuentes-Garcia, appeals his sentence following conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He argues that his use of an alias until just prior to sentencing was not a sufficient basis for application of the sentencing enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. Morales’ conduct falls within the range of conduct to which that enhancement may be applied. See United States v. McDonald , 964 F.2d 390, 392-93 (5th Cir. 1992). TheNo. 97-40882 -2- district court’s factual findings regarding his use of an alias are not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Cisneros , 112 F.3d 1272, 1279 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.
#### John F. Kelly, Respondent, v. New York City Omnibus Corporation, Appellant.

No opinion. Present— Peck, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.742 Verification and justification of claim for preferential treatment. ( a ) *Verification.* A claim for preferential tariff treatment made under § 10.723(a) of this subpart, including any statements or other information submitted to CBP in support of the claim, will be subject to such verification as the port director deems necessary. In the event that the port director is provided with insufficient information to verify or substantiate the claim, the port director may deny the claim for preferential treatment. A verification of a claim for preferential treatment may be conducted by means of one or more of the following: ( 1 ) Requests for information from the importer;
( 2 ) Written requests for information to the exporter or producer;
( 3 ) Requests for the importer to arrange for the exporter or producer to provide information directly to CBP;
( 4 ) Visits to the premises of the exporter or producer in Australia, in accordance with procedures that the Parties adopt pertaining to the verification; and
( 5 ) Such other procedures as the Parties may agree.
( b ) *Applicable accounting principles.* When conducting a verification of origin to which Generally Accepted Accounting Principles may be relevant, CBP will apply and accept the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles applicable in the country of production.
### §784. Administrative powers of National Council

#### (a) Bylaws and rules

The National Council may prescribe such bylaws and rules as may be necessary to carry out its duties under this subchapter.

#### (b) Hearings

The National Council may hold such hearings, sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and receive such evidence as it deems advisable.

#### (c) Advisory committees

The National Council may appoint advisory committees to assist the National Council in carrying out its duties. The members thereof shall serve without compensation.

#### (d) Use of mails

The National Council may use the United States mails in the same manner and upon the same conditions as other departments and agencies of the United States.

#### (e) Use of services, personnel, information, and facilities

The National Council may use, with the consent of the agencies represented on the Interagency Disability Coordinating Council, and as authorized in subchapter V, such services, personnel, information, and facilities as may be needed to carry out its duties under this subchapter, with or without reimbursement to such agencies.

(Pub. L. 93–112, title IV, §404, as added Pub. L. 105–220, title IV, §407, Aug. 7, 1998, 112 Stat. 1201.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 784, Pub. L. 93–112, title IV, §404, as added Pub. L. 95–602, title I, §117, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2979; amended Pub. L. 102–569, title IV, §405, Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4423, related to administrative powers of National Council, prior to the general amendment of this subchapter by Pub. L. 105–220.

Another prior section 784, Pub. L. 93–112, title IV, §404, Sept. 26, 1973, 87 Stat. 387, directed Secretary to submit annual reports to the President and to Congress on activities carried out under this chapter, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 95–602, §117.

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

#### Termination of Advisory Committees

Advisory committees established after Jan. 5, 1973, to terminate not later than the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the date of their establishment, unless, in the case of a committee established by the President or an officer of the Federal Government, such committee is renewed by appropriate action prior to the expiration of such 2-year period, or in the case of a committee established by the Congress, its duration is otherwise provided for by law. See section 1013 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                      5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         280196
<SECURITIES>                                   66880
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11102650
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (93629)
<INVENTORY>                                    3716992
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               16060018
<PP&E>                                         2173095
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1442600)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 28376665
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          11947142
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       63433
<OTHER-SE>                                     14572313
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   28376665
<SALES>                                        7726866
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               11068954
<CGS>                                          5332973
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5432509
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             517357
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1351129
<INCOME-TAX>                                   631173
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            719956
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   719956
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .13
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

   CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Skynet Telematics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB, for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Tomas George Wilmot, President 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:

(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/ Tomas George Wilmot
------------------------
    Tomas George Wilmot
    President

April 30, 2007


<PAGE>
<PAGE>




                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-46463 and 333-54202) of ImageMax, Inc. of our report dated
March 5, 2003 (except for the second paragraph of Note 2 and Note 6, as to
which the date is April 11, 2003) with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of ImageMax, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form
10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
April 11, 2003
### **CHAPTER 4—OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES**

Sec.
60.
Repealed.
60–1, 60–2.
Transferred.
60a.
Omitted.
60a–1 to 60a–2a. Transferred.
60b, 60c.
Omitted.
60c–1.
Transferred.
60c–2.
Repealed.
60c–2a to 60c–6. Transferred.
60d.
Repealed.
60d–1.
Transferred.
60e, 60e–1.
Repealed.
60e–1a to 60e–1d. Transferred.
60e–2.
Omitted.
60e–2a, 60e–2b.
Transferred.
60e–3 to 60g–1.
Omitted or Repealed.
60g–2.
Transferred.
60h, 60i.
Omitted or Repealed.
60j to 60j–2.
Transferred.
60j–3.
Repealed.
60j–4 to 60l.
Transferred.
60m, 60n.
Repealed.
60o to 61–1c.
Transferred.
61–2.
Omitted.
61a.
Transferred.
61a–1, 61a–2.
Omitted.
61a–3.
Transferred.
61a–4 to 61a–8.
Repealed or Omitted.
61a–9, 61a–9a.
Transferred.
61a–10.
Omitted.
61a–11, 61b.
Transferred.
61b–1 to 61b–2.
Omitted.
61b–3.
Transferred.
61c.
Omitted.
61c–1 to 61d–2.
Transferred.
61d–3.
Repealed.
61d–4 to 61e–4.
Transferred.
61f, 61f–1.
Omitted.
61f–1a.
Transferred.
61f–2 to 61f–6.
Omitted.
61f–7 to 61g.
Transferred.
61g–1 to 61g–3.
Omitted.
61g–4 to 61g–8.
Transferred.
61h, 61h–1.
Omitted.
61h–2.
Repealed.
61h–3.
Omitted.
61h–4 to 61h–7.
Transferred.
61i to 61j–1.
Omitted.
61j–2 to 62.
Transferred.
62a.
Omitted.
62b.
Transferred.
63.
Repealed.
64.
Omitted.
64–1 to 64b.
Transferred.
65.
Repealed.
65a to 65f.
Transferred.
66.
Repealed.
66a to 69b.
Transferred.
70 to 72.
Omitted.
72a.
Transferred.
72a–1, 72a–1a.
Repealed.
72a–1b.
Transferred.
72a–1c, 72a–1d.
Repealed.
72a–1e to 72a–1i. Transferred.
72a–2 to 72a–4.
Omitted or Repealed.
72b.
Transferred.
72b–1, 72c.
Omitted or Repealed.
72d, 72d–1.
Transferred.
73, 74.
Omitted.
74–1.
Transferred.
74–2.
Omitted.
74a.
Transferred.
74a–1.
Omitted.
74a–2 to 74a–5.
Transferred.
74a–6.
Repealed.
74a–7 to 74d–2.
Transferred.
75 to 75a.
Repealed.
75a–1.
Transferred.
75b to 75e.
Omitted.
75f.
Transferred.
76 to 76b.
Omitted or Repealed.
77.
Transferred.
77a.
Repealed.
78 to 80a.
Transferred.
81 to 82.
Repealed.
83.
Transferred.
84, 84–1.
Repealed.
84–2.
Transferred.
84–3, 84–4.
Omitted.
84a.
Transferred.
84a–1 to 88a.
Repealed or Omitted.
88b to 88b–5.
Transferred.
88b–6.
Repealed.
88b–7.
Transferred.
88c, 88c–1.
Repealed.
88c–2 to 89a.
Transferred.
90, 91.
Repealed.
92.
Transferred.
92–1.
Repealed.
92a to 92d.
Transferred.
92e to 95.
Repealed or Omitted.
95–1 to 95e.
Transferred.
96 to 100.
Repealed.
101.
Transferred.
102.
Repealed.
102a.
Transferred.
103, 104.
Omitted.
104a to 112.
Transferred.
112a to 112d.
Repealed.
112e to 115.
Transferred.
116.
Repealed.
117.
Transferred.
117a.
Omitted.
117b to 119.
Transferred.
119a, 120.
Repealed or Omitted.
121.
Transferred.
121a.
Repealed.
121b to 121g.
Transferred.
122 to 123a.
Repealed or Omitted.
123b to 125a.
Transferred.
126, 126–1.
Repealed or Omitted.
126–2.
Transferred.
126a.
Omitted.
126b.
Transferred.
127.
Repealed.
127a, 127b.
Transferred.
128 to 130.
Repealed.
130–1 to 130h.
Transferred.
130i.
Repealed.
130j to 130l.
Transferred.
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.821 Declaration. ( a ) *General.* An importer who claims preferential tariff treatment on a non-originating cotton or man-made fiber good specified in § 10.819 of this subpart must submit, at the request of the Center director, a declaration supporting such a claim for preferential tariff treatment that sets forth all pertinent information concerning the production of the good, including: ( 1 ) A description of the good, quantity, invoice numbers, and bills of lading;
( 2 ) A description of the operations performed in the production of the good in the territory of one or both of the Parties;
( 3 ) A reference to the specific provision in § 10.819 of this subpart that forms the basis for the claim for preferential tariff treatment; and
( 4 ) A statement as to any fiber, yarn, or fabric of a non-Party and the origin of such materials used in the production of the good.
( b ) *Retention of records.* An importer must retain all documents relied upon to prepare the declaration for a period of five years.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

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

I-97-30 March 25, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC PROPOSES $2,750 CIVIL PENALTY FOR N.J. MEDICAL FACILITY

FOR SEVERAL RADIATION SAFETY PROGRAM DEFICIENCIES

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a $2,750

fine for a New Jersey medical facility for six alleged violations

of agency requirements relating to radiation safety program

deficiencies. NRC staff identified the violations at St.

Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, in Paterson, N.J., during

inspections conducted from January 13 to 15 and on January 30.

Among the violations found at St. Joseph's were the

following failures: to provide, through the radiation safety

officer, the required oversight of the radiation safety program;

to conduct required weekly surveys of the radioactive waste

storage area; to perform the required iodine-131 air

concentration surveys of the therapy suite; to monitor the

iodine-131 air concentration in the radioactive waste storage

area; of the radiation safety officer to sign records of leakage

tests; and of the radiation safety officer to sign records of the

quarterly inventories of sealed sources.

Holders of NRC radioactive materials licenses are required

to appoint a radiation safety officer (RSO) who is responsible

for the implementation of a radiation safety program.

NRC Region I Administrator Hubert J. Miller said the

violations indicate "a significant lack of attention by the RSO

and the Radiation Safety Committee to licensed activities. In

fact, the majority of the violations that occurred were the

direct responsibility of the RSO. Management attention to the

radiation safety program is warranted to ensure that licensed

activities are conducted safely and in accordance with

requirements."

"While the violations in question did not have an impact on

the health and safety of the public, patients or your staff," Mr.

Miller continued, "such violations are potential precursors to

more serious problems, and therefore, it is important that the

RSO and the Radiation Safety Committee actively look for,

identify and correct such problems. This did not occur at your

facility."

St. Joseph's has 30 days to pay the proposed fine or to

request in writing that all or part of the penalty be withdrawn.
#