alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10
- 23
- 00035
- CR MATTHEW JOE HERRERA , Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 18th District Court Somervell County, Texas Trial Court No. 249
- 01088

MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury found appellant Matthew Joe Herrera guilty of one count of possession of a controlled substance in an amount greater than fou r grams but less than 200 grams with intent to deliver and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. See T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN
. § 481.11 2 ; see also T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § 46.04. The trial
court sentenced Herrera accordingly. Herrera then filed the present appeal. We affirm

.Herrera v. Stat e Page 2

Herrera’s appointed appellate counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in support of the motion asserting that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in her opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See generally Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel’s brief evidences a professional evaluation of the record and compliance with other duties of appointed
counsel. We conc lude that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed
counsel. See id. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807, 812

- 13 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); see also Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d 403, 407

- 09 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must “after a full examination of all the proceedings, . . . decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders , 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S. Ct. at 1400; see Pen son v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 349

- 50, 102 L. Ed. 2d (1988); accord Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 509

- 11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is “wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v.
Cou rt of Appeals , 486 U.S. 429, 438 n.10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). Although provided the opportunity, Herrera has not filed a response to the motion to
withdraw or Anders brief. After a review of the entire record in this appeal , we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 826=28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment s .Herrera v. Stat e Page 3

Counsel’s motion to withdraw from representation of Herrera is granted.

STEVE S MITH Justice Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Johnson, and Justice Smith Appeal affirmed; motion granted Opinion delivered and filed December 28, 2023 Do not publish [C R PM ]
Exhibit 32.1 

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 

as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

I, Michael D. Durham, as President and Chief Executive Officer of ADA-ES, Inc. (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 Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) fullycomplies 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. 

/s/ Michael D. Durham 

Name:    Michael D. Durham 

Title:       President and Chief Executive Officer 

Date:       May 13, 2010
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 222 (Thursday, November 18, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67553-67554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25546]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy


Notice of Availability of Government-Owned Invention; Available 
for Licensing

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The invention listed below is assigned to the United States 
Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and is available 
for licensing by the Department of the Navy. Patent application 10/
975,126: Backplane Tester and Method of Use. This is a low-cost robust 
backplane test system that is compact, easy-to-use, and simple to 
manufacture. It is not encumbered by other features and add-ons, which 
may act as constraints to the test system and be complex to use, larger 
and more expensive.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the invention cited should be 
directed to the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code 054, Bldg 
1, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Brian Bailey, Naval Surface 
Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code 054, Bldg 1, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 
47522-5001, telephone (812) 854-2378. To download an application for 
license, see: http://www.crane.navy.mil/newscommunity/techtrans_CranePatents.asp.


[[Page 67554]]


(Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.)

    Dated: November 8, 2004.
J. H. Wagshul,
Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 
Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 04-25546 Filed 11-17-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
NRC ASSIGNS NEW RESIDENT INSPECTOR TO SEABROOK NUCLEAR PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in the Region I Office in 

King of Prussia, Pa., have selected Matthew Jennerich as the Resident 

Inspector for Seabrook Station in Seabrook, N.H. He joins Senior Resident 

Inspector Bill Raymond at the single unit site, operated by NextEra Energy 

Seabrook, LLC.

Jennerich served in the United States Navy for 7 years as a submarine 

officer and is currently in the Naval Reserves, supporting the U.S. submarine 

fleet. He earned a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from the 

University of Kansas and a master’s degree in engineering management from Old Dominion 

University. 

Jennerich joined the NRC in September 2010 and completed a rigorous NRC inspector

qualification program the following year. Most recently, he was a project engineer in the Region 

I Division of Reactor Projects.

“Matt Jennerich has the training and commitment to safety that will help the NRC carry

out its mission of protecting people and the environment, and ensure NextEra continues to safely 

operate Seabrook Station,” said NRC Region I Administrator Bill Dean. 

Each U.S. commercial nuclear power plant site has at least two NRC Resident Inspectors.

They serve as the agency's eyes and ears at the facility, conducting regular inspections,

monitoring significant work projects, and interacting with plant workers and the public. Resident 

inspectors can serve for up to 7 years at any one site.

The Seabrook Resident Inspectors can be reached at 603-474-3589.

###

News releases are available through a free listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES link on the 

NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's 

website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region I 

2100 Renaissance Blvd., King of Prussia, Pa. 19406-2713

E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov 

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov

No. I-12-034

Contact: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330

 Neil Sheehan (610) 337-5331

August 30, 2012

Email: opa1.resource@nrc.gov
SCWC-12-0000897

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

CIERRA ANN M. KAM, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-12-0000897; CASE NO. 1DTA-12-00359)

ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Cierra Ann M. Kam’s

application for writ of certiorari filed on February 19, 2015, is

hereby accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no oral argument will be

heard in this case. Any party may, within ten days and pursuant

to Rule 34(c) of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure, move

for retention of oral argument.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 2, 2015.

Taryn R. Tomasa

for petitioner

Brian R. Vincent

for respondent

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-12-0000897

02-APR-2015

07:56 AM
§ 923.58 Public hearings. The management program must be developed and adopted after the holding of public hearings. A State must: ( a ) Hold a minimum of two public hearings during the course of program development, at least one of which will be on the total scope of the coastal management program. Hearings on the total management program do not have to be held on the actual document submitted to the Assistant Administrator for section 306 approval. However, such hearing(s) must cover the substance and content of the proposed management program in such a manner that the general public, and particularly affected parties, have a reasonable opportunity to understand the impacts of the management program. If the hearing(s) are not on the management document per se, all requests for such document must be honored and comments on the document received prior to submission of the document to the Assistant Administrator must be considered;
( b ) Provide a minimum of 30 days public notice of hearing dates and locations;
( c ) Make available for public review, at the time of public notice, all agency materials pertinent to the hearings; and
( d ) Include a transcript or summary of the public hearing(s) with the State's program document or submit same within thirty (30) days following submittal of the program to the Assistant Administrator. At the same time this transcript or summary is submitted to the Assistant Administrator, it must be made available, upon request, to the public.
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 annual report on Form 10-K of Network Engines, Inc. (the "Company") for the fiscal year ended
September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, John H. Curtis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



|Dated: December 14, 2004 |  |                                                        
|------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|                         |  | /s/JOHN H. CURTISJohn H. Curtis
Chief Executive Officer

---



QuickLinks
List of Attendees: November 4, 2009 Meeting with Community Stakeholders

Aaron Mair - Environmental Justice Activist (NY) Jane Williams - Desert Citizens Against Pollution (CA)

Vernice Miller-Travis - Environm ental Justice Advocate (MD) Jeffrey Jacoby - Program Director, Texa s Campaign for the Environment (TX) Sally Sorbello - Concerned Citizen (MD)

Kirstie Pecci - Residents for Altern ative Trash Solutions (RATS! - MA) Ananda Lee Tan - Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA - CA) Marian Feinberg - Environmental Hea lth Coordinator For A Better Bronx (NY) Neil Carmen - Sierra Club, Lonestar Chapter (TX) Marty Sinclair - Sierra Cl ub, Air Toxics Chair (OH) Joyce M Eden - West Valle y Citizens Air Watch (CA) Tammy Cromer-Campbell, Concerned Citizen (TX) Peter Anderson - Center for a Competitive Waste Industry (WI) Laura Haight - New York Public In terest Research Group (NYPIRG - NY) Bill Freese - Huron Environmental Activists League (MI) Jared Saylor - Earthjustice (DC) Alex Allred - Downwinders at Risk (TX) Jim Pew - Earthjustice (DC) Emily Enderle - Earthjustice (DC) Mathy Stanislaus, EPA, OSWER Matt Straus, EPA, OSWER Antoinette Powell Dickson, EPA, OSWER Matt Hale, EPA, OSWER, ORCR Michael Galbraith, EPA, OSWER, ORCR Marc Thomas, EPA, OSWER, ORCR
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed February 17, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-0255

Lower Tribunal Nos. A91UHDE, 19-350 AC

________________

Michele James,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Robin 

Faber, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Manuel Alvarez, Assistant 

Public Defender, for appellant.

Katherine Fernandez Rundle, State Attorney, and Mark Lopez-Trigo 

and Manpreet K. Uppal, Assistant State Attorneys, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and MILLER and LOBREE, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
### SUBCHAPTER XI—ALLOTMENTS FOR VULNERABLE ELDER RIGHTS PROTECTION ACTIVITIES
§ 16.5 Development of performance information labeling specifications. ( a ) If the Secretary makes a finding of need pursuant to § 16.4, she will publish a proposed Performance Information Labeling Specification in the Federal Register with a notice giving the complete text of the proposed Specification and any other pertinent information. The notice will invite any interested person to submit written comments on the proposed Specification within 45 days after its publication in the Federal Register, unless another time limit is provided by the Secretary. Interested persons wanting to express their views in an informal hearing may do so, if within 15 days after the proposed Specification is published in the Federal Register, they request the Secretary to hold a hearing. Such informal hearings shall be held so as to give all interested persons an opportunity for the oral presentation of data, views, or arguments in addition to the opportunity to make written submissions. Notice of such hearings shall be published in the Federal Register. A transcript shall be kept of any oral presentations.
( b ) Each Specification shall as a minimum include: ( 1 ) A description of the performance characteristics of the consumer product covered;
( 2 ) An identification by reference of the test methods to be used in measuring the performance characteristics. The test methods, where they exist and are deemed appropriate for inclusion in the particular Specification involved, shall be those which are described in nationally-recognized voluntary standards. Where appropriate test methods do not exist, they will be developed by the Department of Commerce in cooperation with interested parties and set out in full in the Specification;
( 3 ) A prototype label and directions for displaying the label on or with the consumer product concerned. Such directions will not prohibit the display of additional information by the participant on space adjacent to the marked boundaries of the label; and
( 4 ) Conditions of participation.
( c ) The Secretary, after consideration of all written and oral comments and other materials received in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, shall publish in the Federal Register within 30 days after the final date for receipt of comments, or as soon as practicable thereafter, a notice either: ( 1 ) Giving the complete text of a final Specification, including conditions of use, and stating that any prospective participant in the program desiring voluntarily to use the Department of Commerce Mark developed under § 16.10 must advise the Department of Commerce: or
( 2 ) Stating that the proposed Specification will be further developed before final publication; or
( 3 ) Withdrawing the proposed Specification from further consideration.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00056-CV

JIMMY LEWIS SMITH, JR., D/B/A J&J TUBULAR, Appellant

V.

PRO-TEST, INC., AND STEVE STIDHAM, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-118-CCL2

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Stevens
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The parties have filed a joint motion to dismiss this appeal, representing that they have 

fully and finally resolved any pending issues related to the judgment from which this appeal was 

filed. Under the authority of Rule 42.1(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and in 

keeping with the parties’ wishes, we grant the motion to dismiss. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a).

We dismiss this appeal.

Scott E. Stevens

Justice

Date Submitted: September 23, 2019

Date Decided: September 24, 2019
U.S. COMPANIES DISCOVER MOLDOVA

----

**July 1998
by Padraic J. Sweeney & Helen Midori**
### Division B—United States Enrichment Corporation
### Part I—Family Unity Demonstration Project
### **CHAPTER 29—JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AND YOUTH OFFENSES CONTROL**
#### § 1028.112 Review by institution.

Research covered by this policy that has been approved by an IRB may be subject to further appropriate review and approval or disapproval by officials of the institution. However, those officials may not approve the research if it has not been approved by an IRB.
Exhibit 31.1
   1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Cardiovascular Systems,
Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this 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.
    
    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to me 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 my conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    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.
    
    I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
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; andb)
    
    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.
 By:
    
    /s/ David L. MartinDated: February 13, 2009
    
    
    
    David L. MartinPresident and Chief Executive Officer
### Part D—Election Assistance
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6438

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

AKIN AKINKOYE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR97-151-PJM)

Submitted: January 18, 2002 Decided: February 28, 2002

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Akin Akinkoye, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Michael Dettelbach, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Akin Akinkoye appeals from the district court’s order denying

his motion to compel his trial counsel to produce materials he

deems necessary to his anticipated § 2255 motion. We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

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

court. United States v. Akinkoye, No. CR-97-151-PJM (D. Md. filed

Oct. 4, 2000 & entered Oct. 5, 2000). 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
# L_2023004EN.01003901.xml

| 5.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 4/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 4/39

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE No 224/2019

of 27 September 2019

amending Annex II (Technical regulations, standards, testing and certification) to the EEA Agreement [2023/29]

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (“the EEA Agreement”), and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/238 of 8 February 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 to classify the substance ovotransferrin as regards its maximum residue limit (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/238 of 8 February 2019 amending Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 to classify the substance ovotransferrin as regards its maximum residue limit (1) is to be incorporated into the EEA Agreement.

| (2) | Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Annex II to the EEA Agreement should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indent is added in point 13 (Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010) of Chapter XIII of Annex II to the EEA Agreement:

| ‘— | 32019 R 0238: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/238 of 8 February 2019 (OJ L 39, 11.2.2019, p. 4).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32019 R 0238: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/238 of 8 February 2019 (OJ L 39, 11.2.2019, p. 4).’

Article 2

The text of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/238 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 28 September 2019, provided that all the notifications under Article 103(1) of the EEA Agreement have been made (*1).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 27 September 2019.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

Gunnar PÁLSSON

---

(1)  
  OJ L 39, 11.2.2019, p. 4.

1

(*1)  No constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---