alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 01-14-00970-CR

In the

Court of Appeals

For the

First District of Texas

At Houston

♦

No. 127139

In the 209th Criminal District Court

Of Harris County, Texas

♦

FLORENCIO LEAL

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellee

♦

STATE’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH 

TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF 

♦

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1, 10.5(b) & 38.6(d), 

moves for an extension of time within which to file its appellate brief. In support 

of its motion, the State submits the following: 

1. Appellant was charged with capital murder.

2. Appellant entered a plea of “not guilty.” 

ACCEPTED

01-14-00972-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

10/30/2015 12:49:35 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 10/30/2015 12:49:35 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
3. A jury found appellant guilty as charged and he was automatically 

sentenced to confinement for life.

4. Appellant filed a written notice of appeal on November 19, 2014.

5. Appellant’s brief was filed August 13, 2015. 

6. The State’s brief was due September 14, 2015.

7. The State seeks an extension until today, October 30, 2015, to file its 

brief.

8. The following facts are relied upon to show good cause for the 

requested extension:

a. The undersigned attorney has filed 3 briefs in the last 30 

days and has 5 more briefs due in the next 30 days. 

b. The State’s motion is not for purposes of delay, but so that 

justice may be done.

WHEREFORE, the State prays that this Court will grant the requested 

extension until September 30, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Bridget Holloway

BRIDGET HOLLOWAY

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

Harris County Criminal Justice Center

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 755-5826

Texas Bar No. 24025227

holloway_bridget@dao.hctx.net
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This certifies the undersigned attorney requested that a copy of this 

document be served to appellant’s attorneys via TexFile at the following email on 

October 30, 2015:

Nicole DeBorde

Defense Attorney

Email: nicole@bsdlawfirm.com

/s/ Bridget Holloway

BRIDGET HOLLOWAY

Assistant District Attorney

Harris County, Texas

Harris County Criminal Justice Center

1201 Franklin, Suite 600

Houston, Texas 77002

(713) 755-5826

Texas Bar No. 24025227

holloway_bridget@dao.hctx.net
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      27,639,970
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,353,567
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            33,655,199
<PP&E>                                      17,854,527
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,371,552
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,147,112
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,315,623
<BONDS>                                         32,494
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        77,120
<OTHER-SE>                                  47,274,229
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                47,147,122
<SALES>                                      3,441,001
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,441,001
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,212,995
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              72,081
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,155,925
<INCOME-TAX>                                   224,574
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            931,351
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   931,351
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.16
        

</TABLE>
#### Ana V. Cruz, Appellant, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and Verizon New York, Inc., Respondent.

[832 NYS2d 801]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard R. Silver, J.), entered December 5, 2005, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant-respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The affirmation of defendant’s attorney and the arguments made therein are supported by pertinent references to the pleadings, the parties’ deposition téstimony and photographs marked as exhibits at depositions *(see Zuckerman v City of New York,*49 NY2d 557, 563 [1980]), and establish defendant’s prima facie entitlement to summary judgment based on the fact that the alleged sidewalk defect was trivial *(see Trincere v County of Suffolk,*90 NY2d 976 [1997]; *Gaud v Markham,*307 AD2d 845 [2003]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan and Gonzalez, JJ.
§ 1000.147 When does housing qualify as affordable housing under NAHASDA? ( a ) Housing qualifies as affordable housing, provided that the family occupying the unit is low-income at the following times: ( 1 ) In the case of rental housing, at the time of the family's initial occupancy of such unit;
( 2 ) In the case of a contract to purchase existing housing, at the time of purchase;
( 3 ) In the case of a lease-purchase agreement for existing housing or for housing to be constructed, at the time the agreement is signed; and
( 4 ) In the case of a contract to purchase housing to be constructed, at the time the contract is signed.
( b ) Families that are not low-income as described in this section may be eligible under § 1000.104 or § 1000.110.
[63 FR 12349, Mar. 12, 1998. Redesignated at 77 FR 71526, Dec. 3, 2012]
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2800 

To designate the State Route 1 Bridge in the State of Delaware as the 

‘‘Senator William V. Roth, Jr. Bridge’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 8, 2005 

Mr. CASTLE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To designate the State Route 1 Bridge in the State of 

Delaware as the ‘‘Senator William V. Roth, Jr. Bridge’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF SENATOR WILLIAM V. ROTH, 

4 JR. BRIDGE. 

5 The State Route 1 Bridge over the Chesapeake and 

6 Delaware Canal in the State of Delaware is designated 

7 as the ‘‘Senator William V. Roth, Jr. Bridge’’. 

8 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

9 Any reference in a law (including regulations), map, 

10 document, paper, or other record of the United States to 
2 

•HR 2800 IH 

1 the bridge described in section 1 shall be considered to 

2 be a reference to the Senator William V. Roth, Jr. Bridge. 

Æ
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

BARRY J. PORTMAN

Federal Public Defender

LOREN D. STEWART

Assistant Federal Public Defender

19th Floor Federal Building – Box 36106

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7700

Counsel for Defendant BIDDLE, JR.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RONNIE BIDDLE, JR.,

Defendant.

_____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR-09-1159 MHP

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR RETURN OF

PROPERTY

Good cause appearing,

It is HEREBY ORDERED that the United States and its agents, including but not limited

to the San Francisco Police Department and the Pier 70 Auto Return, return all property seized

from Mr. Ronnie Biddle, Jr. Such property shall include a 1986 Honda Accord with license plate

ending in -839 that is registered to Mr. Biddle and all of its contents. The property shall be

returned forthwith, and in no event later than three days from the date of this Order. 

//

//

//

//

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR RETURN OF

PROPERTY 1

July 19, 2010.

Case 3:09-cr-01159-MHP Document 66 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Notwithstanding any towing or storage fees assessed by the United States or its agents,

the San Francisco Police Department or its agents, or the San Francisco Department of Parking

and Traffic or its agents, Mr. Biddle’s car shall be returned to him at no cost. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

DATED HON. MARILYN HALL PATEL

United States District Court Judge

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR RETURN OF

PROPERTY 2

The Court understands that have been waived. In any event, 7/9/2010

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Marilyn H. Patel

Case 3:09-cr-01159-MHP Document 66 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 2
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2696 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 9,10-Anthracenedione, 1,8-dihydroxy4-nitro-5-(phenylamino)-. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 26, 2005 

Mrs. MYRICK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 9,10-Anthracenedione, 

1,8-dihydroxy-4-nitro-5-(phenylamino)-. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 9,10-ANTHRACENEDIONE, 1,8-DIHYDROXY-4- 

4 NITRO-5-(PHENYLAMINO)-. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.12.01 9,10-Anthracenedione, 1,8- 

dihydroxy-4-nitro-5- 

(phenylamino)-. (CAS No. 

20241–76–3) (provided for 

in subheading 3204.11.50) .. Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 2696 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
###### Editorial Note on Part 710

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 710 appear at 84 FR 37752, Aug. 2, 2019.

#### § 710.5 Failure to request hearing.

The President of DFC may take appropriate action referred to in § 710.13 in the case of any former DFC employee who has failed to make a written request to DFC for a hearing within 30 days after receiving adequate notice.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6133

MICHAEL R. BATCHELOR,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(8:12-cv-01471-DCN)

Submitted: April 25, 2013 Decided: April 30, 2013

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael R. Batchelor, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael R. Batchelor seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Batchelor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Bathcelor’s 

motion to appoint counsel, deny a certificate of appealability,

and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because 
3

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 511.11 Acceptance of award.

The acceptance by the claimant of any award will be final and conclusive on the claimant. The acceptance will constitute a complete release of any claim by reason of the same subject matter against the United States and against the employee whose act or omission resulted in the claim. Adjudication and payment shall likewise be conclusive on all officers of the United States, unless procured by fraud.
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




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned Officer of ERF Wireless, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the Company's
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




May 20,
2009




/s/ H. Dean
    CubleyH. Dean
      CubleyChief Executive
      Officer
Case 3:09-cv-01212-MEJ Document 75 Filed 02/23/10 Page 1 of 4
All pretrial and trial dates are VACATED. 23

Case 3:09-cv-01212-MEJ Document 75 Filed 02/23/10 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:09-cv-01212-MEJ Document 75 Filed 02/23/10 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:09-cv-01212-MEJ Document 75 Filed 02/23/10 Page 4 of 4
Editorial Note on Part 41
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 41 appear at 71 FR 34521 and 34522, June 15, 2006.

§ 41.81 Fiancé(e) or spouse of a U.S. citizen and derivative children. ( a ) *Fiancé(e).* An alien is classifiable as a nonimmigrant fiancé(e) under INA 101(a)(15)(K)(i) if: ( 1 ) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien is qualified under that provision and the consular officer has received a petition filed by a U.S. citizen to confer nonimmigrant status as a fiancé(e) on the alien, which has been approved by the DHS under INA 214(d), or a notification of such approval from that Service;
( 2 ) The consular officer has received from the alien the alien's sworn statement of ability and intent to conclude a valid marriage with the petitioner within 90 days of arrival in the United States; and
( 3 ) The alien has met all other qualifications in order to receive a nonimmigrant visa, including the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section.
( b ) *Spouse.* An alien is classifiable as a nonimmigrant spouse under INA 101(a)(15)(K)(ii) when all of the following requirements are met: ( 1 ) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien is qualified under that provision and the consular officer has received a petition approved by the DHS pursuant to INA 214(p)(1), that was filed by the U.S. citizen spouse of the alien in the United States.
( 2 ) If the alien's marriage to the U.S. citizen was contracted outside of the United States, the alien is applying in the country in which the marriage took place, or if there is no consular post in that country, then at a consular post designated by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Visa Services to accept immigrant visa applications for nationals of that country.
( 3 ) If the marriage was contracted in the United States, the alien is applying in a country as provided in part 42, § 42.61 of this chapter.
( 4 ) The alien otherwise has met all applicable requirements in order to receive a nonimmigrant visa, including the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section.
( c ) *Child.* An alien is classifiable under INA 101(a)(15)(K)(iii) if: ( 1 ) The consular officer is satisfied that the alien is the child of an alien classified under INA 101(a)(15)(K)(i) or (ii) and is accompanying or following to join the principal alien; and
( 2 ) The alien otherwise has met all other applicable requirements in order to receive a nonimmigrant visa, including the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section.
( d ) *Eligibility as an immigrant required.* The consular officer, insofar as is practicable, must determine the eligibility of an alien to receive a nonimmigrant visa under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of this section as if the alien were an applicant for an immigrant visa, except that the alien must be exempt from the vaccination requirement of INA 212(a)(1) and the labor certification requirement of INA 212(a)(5).
[66 FR 19393, Apr. 16, 2001]
§ 2004.2 Applicability. This subpart applies to demands and requests to employees for factual or expert testimony relating to official information, or for production of official records or information, in legal proceedings in which HUD or OIG is not a named party. However, this subpart does not apply to: ( a ) Demands upon or requests for an OIG employee to testify as to facts or events that are unrelated to his or her official duties or that are unrelated to the functions of OIG;
( b ) Requests for the release of records under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, or the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a; and
( c ) Congressional demands and Congressional requests for testimony or records.
Skip to Content

        -   Log in            -  Log inEmailPassword Show Password	            Remember meAlready have an account? Log in!No account? Sign up!Forgot your password?Didn't receive confirmation instructions? 
        -            -  Forgot your password?Email Already have an account? Log in!No account? Sign up!Forgot your password?Didn't receive confirmation instructions? 
        -            -  Resend confirmation instructionsEmail Already have an account? Log in!No account? Sign up!Forgot your password?Didn't receive confirmation instructions? 
        -   Sign Up            -  Sign upEmail Password Passwords must be at least 6 characters and contain at least one lower-case letter, one upper-case letter, one number, and one punctuation mark or symbolPassword confirmation  Show Password            Already have an account? Log in!No account? Sign up!Forgot your password?Didn't receive confirmation instructions? 

# Search Publications

- Home

#           Agricultural Chemical Usage - Sheep and Sheep Facilities            NASSLog in or Sign Up to subscribe        

----

Frequency of Release:Not Specified

----

Category:Animals and Animal Products:LivestockAgriculture Economics and Management:Production Practices

Keywords:agrochemicalsinsecticidespest managementsheeptopical application

----

## Releases

| May 23, 2001 | PDFTXTZIP | May 23, 2001: Agricultural Chemical Usage - Sheep and Sheep Facilities detailsx                May 23, 2001: Agricultural Chemical Usage - Sheep and Sheep FacilitiesRelease datetime:May 23, 2001Close |
|--------------|-----------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Contact office name:National Agricultural Statistics Service

Contact email:nass@nass.usda.gov

##         Agency Announcements        
Do you also want to subscribe to all agency announcements from ?
NoYesFooter content with page navigation, site information, and copyright.-  Home 
-  Release Calendar 
×Release CalendarClose
-  About
-  Help 
-  Contact 
-  API 

The USDA Economics, Statistics and Market Information System (ESMIS) contains over 2,100 publications from five agencies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). These materials cover U.S. and international agriculture and related      topics. Mann Library at Cornell University developed and maintains this site.

© 2024 USDA Economics, Statistics and Market Information System
USDA ESMIS partners list with links to their websites.Partners:- Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
- Economic Research Service (ERS)
- Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)
- National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
- World Agricultural Outlook Board (WAOB)
- 
- Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell University
- United States Department of Agriculture
Cornell development contact information.Developed & supported by:
**Albert R. Mann Library**Cornell UniversityIthaca, NY 14853-4301 Phone: (607) 255-3296 Email: usda-help@cornell.edu
Case 3:08-cv-04050-MMC Document 125 Filed 07/28/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-04050-MMC Document 125 Filed 07/28/10 Page 2 of 2
Editorial Note on Part 17
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 17 appear at 87 FR 8196, Feb. 14, 2022.

§ 17.42 Time limitations. A claim under this part may be allowed only if: ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, it is filed in writing within 2 years after accrual. For purposes of this part, a claim accrues at the time of the accident or incident causing the loss or damage, or at such time as the loss or damage should have been discovered by the claimant by the exercise of due diligence.
( b ) It cannot be filed within the time limits of paragraph (a) of this section, because it accrues in time of war or in time of armed conflict in which any armed force of the United States is engaged or if such a war or armed conflict intervenes within 2 years after it accrues, and if good cause is shown, and if it is filed not later than 2 years after that cause ceases to exist, or 2 years after the war or armed conflict is terminated, whichever is earlier.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00248-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF D.B. AND G.B.,

CHILDREN

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 235th District Court

of Cooke County (CV20-00209)

October 28, 2021

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that the 

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
#### Baird *v.*Wood & Hobbs *et al.*

May 15, 1912.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Parker. Ware superior court. January 20, 1912.

*J. L. Sweat,*for plaintiff. *H. W. Wilson,*for defendants.

Lumpkin, J.

Under the evidence, there was no abuse of discretion in refusing an interlocutory injunction.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices eonour.*