alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2023-09-01T19:30:53-0400
      - Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20401
      - Government Publishing Office
      - Government Publishing Office attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by Government Publishing Office
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-89,205-01

EX PARTE SAMANTHA NICOLE WOHLFORD, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR-15-01524A IN THE 276 DISTRICT COURT TH

FROM CAMP 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 murder and

sentenced to ninety-nine years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that her counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to

timely file a notice of appeal. We remanded this application to the trial court for findings of fact and

conclusions of law.

The trial court has determined that counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. We find

that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of
2

conviction in Cause No. CF-15-1524 from the 276 District Court of Camp County. Applicant is th

ordered returned to that time at which she may give a written notice of appeal so that she may then,

with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. Within ten days of the issuance of this opinion,

the trial court shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wishes to

be represented by counsel, the trial court shall immediately appoint an attorney to represent

Applicant on direct appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had been imposed

on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to

prosecute an appeal, she must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the trial court

within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. 

Delivered: March 20, 2019

Do not publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          53,094
<SECURITIES>                                     4,500
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,452
<ALLOWANCES>                                       363
<INVENTORY>                                      3,023
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,572
<PP&E>                                           1,509
<DEPRECIATION>                                     200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  86,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           24,675
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,002
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    86,649
<SALES>                                         17,997
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,997
<CGS>                                            8,264
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,834
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,341
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,203
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,138
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,138
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>
### §6294a. Energy Star program

#### (a) In general

There is established within the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency a voluntary program to identify and promote energy-efficient products and buildings in order to reduce energy consumption, improve energy security, and reduce pollution through voluntary labeling of, or other forms of communication about, products and buildings that meet the highest energy conservation standards.

#### (b) Division of responsibilities

Responsibilities under the program shall be divided between the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency in accordance with the terms of applicable agreements between those agencies.

#### (c) Duties

The Administrator and the Secretary shall—

(1) promote Energy Star compliant technologies as the preferred technologies in the marketplace for—

(A) achieving energy efficiency; and

(B) reducing pollution;

(2) work to enhance public awareness of the Energy Star label, including by providing special outreach to small businesses;

(3) preserve the integrity of the Energy Star label;

(4) regularly update Energy Star product criteria for product categories;

(5) solicit comments from interested parties prior to establishing or revising an Energy Star product category, specification, or criterion (or prior to effective dates for any such product category, specification, or criterion);

(6) on adoption of a new or revised product category, specification, or criterion, provide reasonable notice to interested parties of any changes (including effective dates) in product categories, specifications, or criteria, along with—

(A) an explanation of the changes; and

(B) as appropriate, responses to comments submitted by interested parties; and

(7) provide appropriate lead time (which shall be 270 days, unless the Agency or Department specifies otherwise) prior to the applicable effective date for a new or a significant revision to a product category, specification, or criterion, taking into account the timing requirements of the manufacturing, product marketing, and distribution process for the specific product addressed.

#### (d) Deadlines

The Secretary shall establish new qualifying levels—

(1) not later than January 1, 2006, for clothes washers and dishwashers, effective beginning January 1, 2007; and

(2) not later than January 1, 2008, for clothes washers, effective beginning July 1, 2009.

(Pub. L. 94–163, title III, §324A, as added Pub. L. 109–58, title I, §131(a), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 620; amended Pub. L. 110–140, title III, §311(b), Dec. 19, 2007, 121 Stat. 1564.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2007—Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 110–140 substituted "July 1, 2009" for "January 1, 2010".

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

#### Effective Date of 2007 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 110–140 effective on the date that is 1 day after Dec. 19, 2007, see section 1601 of Pub. L. 110–140, set out as an Effective Date note under section 1824 of Title 2, The Congress.
#### Larisa GRIGORYAN, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-75054.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 12, 2007.*

Filed March 16, 2007.

Garbis N. Etmekjian, Glendale, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Marcello Mollo, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Enforcement Section, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Larisa Grigoryan, a native and citizen of Armenia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying her motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

*571We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s underlying order dismissing Grigoryan’s appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture because the instant petition for review is not timely as to that order. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); *Membreno v. Gonzales,*425 F.3d 1227, 1229 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

In her opening brief, Grigoryan fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen. *See Martinez-Serrano v. INS,*94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (holding that issues not raised in a party’s opening brief are waived).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
### §3797k. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3797k was editorially reclassified as section 10562 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §5751. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 5751 was editorially reclassified as section 11280 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
#### § 9.14 Pre-publication review of writings by former Department personnel.

The Department provides pre-publication review of writings on foreign relations topics by former Department personnel, including contractors and detailees, who had security clearances to try to ensure that former personnel do not violate their agreements on non-disclosure of classified national security information in such writings. Manuscripts (including articles, speeches, books, etc.) should be sent to the Director, Office of Information Programs and Services, 515 22nd St. NW., Washington, DC 20522-8100. Questions about pre-publication clearance may be sent to *Classification@state.gov.*
#### § 238.8 Event of Default; Application for Compensation; payment.

At any time after an Event of Default, as this term is defined in an Eligible Note, any Noteholder hereunder, or the Fiscal Agent on behalf of a Noteholder hereunder, may file with USAID an Application for Compensation in the form provided in Appendix A to this part. USAID shall pay or cause to be paid to any such Applicant any compensation specified in such Application for Compensation that is due to the Applicant pursuant to the Guarantee as a Loss of Investment not later than the Guarantee Payment Date. In the event that USAID receives any other notice of an Event of Default, USAID may pay any compensation that is due to any Noteholder pursuant to the Guarantee, whether or not such Noteholder has filed with USAID an Application for Compensation in respect of such amount.
#### (A) Roman Martinez, an Infant, by Orlando Martinez, His Guardian ad Litem, et al. v. Gustavos Vivas et al. (B) First National Bank of Somerset County v. Arthur I. Margulies, Doing business as Hobbs Company.

—[In each action] Application denied, with $10 costs. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
#### § 151.6 Authorized insurer.

The insurance must be issued by an insurer licensed or otherwise authorized by applicable law to do business in the jurisdiction where the motor vehicle, vessel or aircraft is principally garaged, berthed or kept.
### §6979. Labor standards

No grant for a project of construction under this chapter shall be made unless the Administrator finds that the application contains or is supported by reasonable assurance that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on projects of the type covered by sections 3141–3144, 3146, and 3147 of title 40, will be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on similar work in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with those sections; and the Secretary of Labor shall have with respect to the labor standards specified in this section the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R. 3176) and section 3145 of title 40.

(Pub. L. 89–272, title II, §7009, as added Pub. L. 94–580, §2, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2828; amended Pub. L. 96–482, §28, Oct. 21, 1980, 94 Stat. 2349.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950, referred to in text, is set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

#### Codification

In text, "sections 3141–3144, 3146, and 3147 of title 40" substituted for "the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276a—276a–5)", "those sections" substituted for "that Act", and "section 3145 of title 40" substituted for "section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (40 U.S.C. 276c)", on authority of Pub. L. 107–217, §5(c), Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1303, the first section of which enacted Title 40, Public Buildings, Property, and Works.

#### Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in section 3256 of this title, prior to the general amendment of the Solid Waste Disposal Act by Pub. L. 94–580.

#### Amendments

1980—Pub. L. 96–482 substituted "Administrator" for "Secretary".
January 12, 2016 

Dear Mr. Camnitz: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket 

No. FAA−2015−4361). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) to process your petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, 

lighter-than-air), and power source for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) 

should include the maximum weight (including payload). This information can be 

located in the aircraft manual(s). 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov. Once your information has been submitted, please also send a copy of the 

requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking 

number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process 

your request any further, we must receive the information described above by 1/26/16. If we do 

not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267–2999. 

Sincerely, 

/S/ 

Program Analyst
U.S. Department Transport Airplane Directorate

of Transportation Aircraft Certification Service

Federal Aviation 1601 Lind Avenue, S. W.

Administration Renton, Washington 98057-3356

March 4, 2011 

Ms. C.M. Thompson 

Lead Project Administrator 

M/C 03-56 

The Boeing Company 

P.O. Box 3707 

Seattle, WA 98124-2207 

Dear Ms. Thompson: 

We have received your letter BDCO-11-00741, dated February 22, 2011, which is a petition to 

amend Exemption No. 9793B. The petition requests: 

 Revising Limitation 12 to remove the illumination requirements for the airplane in the 

tail down attitude with the escape slide installed. 

 Removing Limitation 17c in anticipation that Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) 25.809(a), at Amendment 116, will be removed from the 747-8F 

certification basis by exception. 

Your petition has been entered into existing Docket No. FAA-2008-0348. However, the 

Transport Airplane Directorate cannot begin work on this petition for exemption until the Seattle 

Aircraft Certification Office has completed the exception to remove 14 CFR 25.809(a) at 

Amendment 116 from the 747-8F certification basis. 

While reviewing your petition we noticed that page 2 contains a proprietary statement. You can 

submit a replacement petition to the Federal Docket Management System with the proprietary 

statement removed and request that the existing petition be removed from the docket. 

We have determined that for the good cause shown in your letter, your petition should not be 

delayed by the publication and comment procedures included in 14 CFR part 11. Therefore, we 

have waived the requirement for Federal Register publication and comment. Even though we 

have waived Federal Register publication and comment pursuant to your petition, you should not 

construe this action to be tacit approval of your request. 

Please note that according to 14 CFR 11.63(d), a petition for exemption must be sent to the FAA 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. You will be advised of the 

agency's decision on your petition as soon as possible. 
2 

In the meantime, should you have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the 

petition process, please contact Jayson Claar of this office at (425) 227-2194, 

jayson.claar@faa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by Kenna Sinclair 

Kenna Sinclair 

Standardization Branch 

Transport Airplane Directorate 

Aircraft Certification Service
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 77740]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-28263]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Defense Science Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Science Board Task Force on Management Oversight 
of Acquisition Organizations will meet in open session on January 10-
11, 2005, and January 17-18, 2005, at SAIC, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Arlington, VA. This Task Force should assess whether all major 
acquisition organizations within the Department have adequate 
management and oversight processes, including what changes might be 
necessary to implement such processes where needed.
    The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary 
of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they 
affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these 
meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will examine the 
oversight function with respect to Title 10 and military department 
regulations to ensure that proper checks and balances exist. The Task 
Force will review whether simplification of the acquisition structure 
could improve both efficiency and oversight.
    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2), it has been 
determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern 
matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, these 
meetings will be closed to the public.

    Dated: December 20, 2004.
Jeannette Owings-Ballard,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 04-28263 Filed 12-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Nolan, Appellant.

[717 NYS2d 193]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Erlbaum, J.), rendered March 23, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, and unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Cooperman, J.), of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his omnibus motion which was to suppress testimony regarding the complainant’s lineup identification. There is no requirement that a defendant be surrounded by individuals nearly identical to him in appearance *(see, People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 335, *cert denied*498 US 833; *People v Rodriguez,*64 NY2d 738, 740-741). Since the lineup participants possessed the same general physical characteristics as those of the defendant *(see, People v Folk,*233 AD2d 462), the fact that the defendant has facial birthmarks did not render the lineup impermissibly suggestive *(see, People v Boone,*251 AD2d 423; *People v Cintron,*226 AD2d 390).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to sever the counts of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, burglary in *401the first degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, from the count of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree. The counts were properly joined. The proof in support of the counts of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, and unlawful imprisonment in the first degree, was material and admissible as evidence-in-chief upon the trial of the count of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the third degree, as the proof related to the reasons for the defendant’s arrest *(see,*CPL 200.20 [2] [b]; *People v Bongarzone,*69 NY2d 892, 895). O’Brien, J. P., Thompson, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.