alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6002

THOMAS N. TWEH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT GREENE; CAPTAIN PAYNE; SERGEANT JEFFERS; SERGEANT 

TATE; DOCTOR DADGAR; ANTHONY STURGESS; DOCTOR DAVARIS; P.A. 

D. STANSBURY; DEPUTY SHERIFF GREEN; DEPUTY SHERIFF SANGCO; 

CORPORAL MUHAMMAD,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. 

(1:12-cv-02360-GLR)

Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 4, 2013

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas N. Tweh, Appellant Pro Se. Edward Barry Lattner, COUNTY 

ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Rockville, Maryland; Roger L. Wolfe, OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas N. Tweh seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his motion for appointment of counsel. This court 

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 

28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The 

order Tweh seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Miller v. 

Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 967 (4th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 938.25 Approval of Pennsylvania abandoned mine land reclamation plan amendments.

The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to OSM, the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register and the State citations or a brief description of each amendment. The amendments in this table are listed in order of the date of final publication in the Federal Register.

| Original amendment submission date | Date of final publication | Citation/description |
| --- | --- | --- |
| April 17, 1992 | October 30, 1992 | Part D of Plan—Initiative, part E of Plan—Modifications. |
| November 21, 1997 | March 26, 1999 | Part F—Government Financed Construction Contracts. |
| November 22, 2016 | August 16, 2024 | Part G—The Pennsylvania Emergency Response Reclamation Program. |

[62 FR 9953, Mar. 5, 1997, as amended at 64 FR 14619, Mar. 26, 1999; 89 FR 66567, Aug. 16, 2024]
#### SWANSTROM, Respondent, v. DAY, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

January 27, 1905.)

Action by J. Edward Swanstrom, as committee, etc., of Edward P. Day, an incompetent person, against Edward W. Day. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
§ 938.11 Conditions of State regulatory program approval. The approval of the Pennsylvania state program is subject to the Commonwealth revising its program to correct the deficiencies listed in this section. The program revisions may be made, as appropriate, to the statutes, the regulations, the program narrative, or the Attorney General's opinion. This section indicates, for the general guidance of the Commonwealth, the component of the program to which the Secretary recommends the change be made. ( a ) - ( i ) [Reserved]
[47 FR 33079, July 30, 1982, as amended at 48 FR 13417, Mar. 31, 1983; 48 FR 45391, Oct. 5, 1983; 49 FR 20492, May 15, 1984; 49 FR 27319, July 3, 1984; 51 FR 18321, May 19, 1986; 66 FR 57665, Nov. 16, 2001]
### §3369b. Oversight of foreign influence in academia

#### (a) Definitions

In this section:

#### (1) Covered institution of higher education

The term "covered institution of higher education" means an institution described in section 1002 of title 20 that receives Federal funds in any amount and for any purpose.

#### (2) Sensitive research subject

The term "sensitive research subject" means a subject of research that is carried out at a covered institution of higher education that receives funds that were appropriated for—

(A) the National Intelligence Program; or

(B) any Federal agency the Director of National Intelligence deems appropriate.

#### (b) Report required

Not later than 180 days after December 20, 2019, and not less frequently than once each year thereafter, the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with such elements of the intelligence community as the Director considers appropriate and consistent with the privacy protections afforded to United States persons, shall submit to congressional intelligence committees a report on risks to sensitive research subjects posed by foreign entities in order to provide Congress and covered institutions of higher education with more complete information on these risks and to help ensure academic freedom.

#### (c) Contents

The report required by subsection (b) shall include the following:

(1) A list of sensitive research subjects that could affect national security.

(2) A list of foreign entities, including governments, corporations, nonprofit organizations and for-profit organizations, and any subsidiary or affiliate of such an entity, that the Director determines pose a counterintelligence, espionage (including economic espionage), or other national security threat with respect to sensitive research subjects.

(3) A list of any known or suspected attempts by foreign entities to exert pressure on covered institutions of higher education, including attempts to limit freedom of speech, propagate misinformation or disinformation, or to influence professors, researchers, or students.

(4) Recommendations for collaboration between covered institutions of higher education and the intelligence community to mitigate threats to sensitive research subjects associated with foreign influence in academia, including any necessary legislative or administrative action.

#### (d) Congressional notifications required

Not later than 30 days after the date on which the Director identifies a change to either list described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (c), the Director shall notify the congressional intelligence committees of the change.

(Pub. L. 116–92, div. E, title LVII, §5713, Dec. 20, 2019, 133 Stat. 2172.)

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

#### Definitions

For definitions of "intelligence community" and "congressional intelligence committees", referred to in text, see section 5003 of div. E of Pub. L. 116–92, set out as a note under section 3003 of this title.
Opinion issued September 26, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 13
- 00 667
- CR

——————————— CHARLES LEE HAWKINS , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 232nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 479960

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Charles Lee Hawkins, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s order denying his request for appointed counsel to assist in filing for post

conviction DNA testing under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 64.01.2

See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 64 .01 (West Supp. 2012). We dismiss the appeal. “[A] motion for appointed counsel is a preliminary matter that precedes the initiation of Chapter 64 proceedings. ” Gutierrez v. State , 307 S.W.3d 318, 32 3 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010 ). “ At this stage, a convicted p erson has only contemplated the filing of a motion for DNA testing. ” Id. (citing T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 64.01 (c) (providing that defendant must inform trial court that he “wishes” to submit motion for DNA testing)). Thus, a trial court’s order de nying a request for the appointment of counsel under article 64.01(c) is not an immediately appealable order

. Id. A ny alleged error made by the trial court in refusing to appoint counsel must be raised in an appeal from the final order denying DNA testing. Id. If a reviewing court determines that the trial court erred by f ailing to appoint counsel, the case is then remanded to the trial court for the appellant to file a subsequent motio n for DNA testing with the assistance of counsel. Id. Here, because a ppellant att empts to appeal the trial court’ s denial of his motion for the appointment of counsel , rather than a final order denying a motion for DNA testing under article 64.01, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal

. See id

. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See id. ; see also T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 43 .2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot

.3 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley , and Massengale

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).
§ 1636.3 Basis for classification in Class 1-A-0. ( a ) A registrant must be conscientiously opposed to participation in combatant training and service in the Armed Forces.
( b ) A registrant's objection may be founded on religious training and belief; it may be based on strictly religious beliefs, or on personal beliefs that are purely ethical or moral in source or content and occupy in the life of a registrant a place parallel to that filled by belief in a Supreme Being for those holding more traditionally religious views.
( c ) A registrant's objection must be sincere.
[47 FR 4655, Feb. 1, 1982, as amended at 52 FR 24457, July 1, 1987]
#### Vincent Sheean, Respondent, v. Rudolph Allen, Appellant.

Order-entered October 30,1962 and interlocutory judgment entered December 11, 1962, unanimously modified, on the law, on the facts -and in the exercise of discretion, by striking from the said judgment the last decretal paragraph and providing in lieu thereof for the appointment of a court-employed special referee to take and state the account, and, as so modified, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant. *Sua sponte,*we direct a joint accounting with *Sheean*v. *Allen*(19 A D 2d 595). There are no other issues of law or fact to be determined. It would appear that most of the items deal with ordinary living expenses and the account is not so long or detailed as to present difficulty in resolving it and consequently is not a long account within the purview of section 466 of the Civil Practice Act. (See *Brooklyn Public Lib.*v. *City of New York,*240 N. Y. 465.) It is the general policy of -the courts in this Department not -to extend the scope or occasion of references in the absence of consent of the parties or of special circumstances meriting such action. No special cir*596cunistanccs appear here. *(Matter of Wilder*v. *Straus-Duparquet,*5 AD 2d 1; *Wolfson*v. *McGrow & Co.,*18 A D 2d 905.) In addition, both parties object to the private reference. Settle order on notice. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
### **CHAPTER 1003—ESTABLISHMENT, DIRECTORS, AND OTHER EMPLOYEES**

Sec.
100301.
Establishment.
100302.
Directors and other employees.
100303.
Effect on other laws.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S 10-KSB AS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DDECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         267,045
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,082,323
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (89,421)
<INVENTORY>                                    588,971
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,382,418
<PP&E>                                       2,403,483
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,354,854)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              18,646,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,583,914
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       395,826
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,202,298
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                18,646,765
<SALES>                                     18,426,151
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,426,151
<CGS>                                       11,132,801
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,434,038
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (144,439)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,025,705)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   232,663
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (3,793,042)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,793,042)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.99)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.99)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                             5
<LEGEND>

This schedule  contains  summary  financial  information  extracted from Century
Properties  Fund XXIII 1999 Fourth Quarter 10-K and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such 10-K filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                 0000764543
<NAME>                                Century Properties Fund XXIII
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000


<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                        2,079
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   560
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                       46,937
<DEPRECIATION>                                    0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               55,321
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                      73,166
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                        0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 75,830
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             10,543
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             13,499
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            5,380
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   0
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               0
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (3,004)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (32.00)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
# Memo
To: 

### From: Date: 

### Re: File forAZ NSR SIP Submittal, Docket# EPA-R09-0AR-2015-0187 Lisa Beckham June 19, 2015

# LX;>b
Clarification ofADEQ's Comments

Afterthe close ofthe public comment period (between May20 and June 10) Icommunicated with Steve Burr atADEQ, through voicemail, email, and phone conversations, regarding ADEQ's comments on our proposed action. (The related emails are included in the administrative record as well.) We discussed clarifying ADEQ's .comments related to its permitting exemption thresholds in nonattainment areas, enforceability of proposed final permits, and review ofair impacts under R18-2- 334(E). ADEQ was able to provide clarifications related to its proposed final permits and review under R18-2- 334(E). (See June 8, 2015 email from Eric 

### C. Massey, Director, Air Quality Division.) However, Mr. Burr indicated onJune 10, 2015, thatADEQwould not be able to provide the necessary clarifications related to its minor NSR permitting exemption thresholds within the timeframe requested by EPA (priorto our final action). We will continue toworkon this issue after EPA's final action.
Exhibit 32.01- Certification of Chief Executive Officer

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Joe Smith, Chief Executive Officer of OHANA ENTERPRISES, INC (the
"Registrant"), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:

     (1)  the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant, to which this
certification is attached as an exhibit (the "Report"), fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m);

          and

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

Date: November 19, 2003

/s/ Joe Smith
---------------------------
    Joe Smith
    Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
# C_2008285EN.01003301.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/33

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2008 — Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan v Commission

(Case T-20/03) (1)

1

(State aid - Existing aid or new aid - Firm in difficulty - Principle of legal certainty - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Private investor test - Compatibility with the common market - Conditions)

(2008/C 285/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (Kahla, Germany) (represented by: M. Schütte and S. Zühlke, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci, Agents, assisted by C. Koenig, professor)

Defendant:

Interveners in support of the applicant: Freistaat Thüringen (Germany) (represented by: initially by A. Weitbrecht and A. van Ysendyck, and subsequently by A. Weitbrecht and M. Núñez-Müller, lawyers); and Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents)

Interveners in support of the applicant:

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2003/643/EC of 13 May 2003 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Kahla Porzellan GmbH and Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH (OJ 2003 L 227, p. 12), in so far as that decision concerns the financial assistance granted to Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay a third of the costs incurred by the Commission, and the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Kahla/Thüringen Porzellan GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay a third of the costs incurred by the Commission, and the Commission to bear two thirds of its own costs;

| 3. | Orders the Land of Thuringia and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear theirown costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Land of Thuringia and the Federal Republic of Germany to bear theirown costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 70, 22.3.2003.

1

---
#### Alfred J. Whittle et al., Respondents, v. Sidney Fenster, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for injuries to person and property, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant in the operation of an automobile, the defendant appeals from an order of the Suprme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 7, 1960, granting summary judgment to plaintiffs and directing an assessment of the damages, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The record discloses issues of fact which should not have been summarily decided on motion. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
Barbara L. Portwood
Leonard, Street and Deinard Professional Association
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300
Minneapolis, MN  55402


April 23, 2001


Board of Directors
Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America
1750 Hennepin Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55403


RE:  Opinion and Consent of Counsel
     Allianz Life Variable Account A

Dear Sir or Madam:

You have requested our Opinion of Counsel in connection with the filing with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, of a Post-Effective  Amendment to a Registration  Statement on Form S-6
for the  Individual  Flexible  Premium  Variable Life  Insurance  Policies to be
issued by Allianz  Life  Insurance  Company of North  America  and its  separate
account, Allianz Life Variable Account A.

We are of the following opinions:

1.  Allianz Life Variable  Account A is a unit investment  trust as that term is
    defined in Section 4(2) of the  Investment  Company Act of 1940 (the "Act"),
    and is currently  registered  with the Securities  and Exchange  Commission,
    pursuant to Section 8(a) of the Act.

2.  Upon the acceptance of premium payments made by a Policy Owner pursuant to a
    Policy  issued  in  accordance   with  the   Prospectus   contained  in  the
    Registration  Statement  and upon  compliance  with  applicable  law, such a
    Policy  Owner  will  have  a  legally-issued,   fully-paid,   non-assessable
    contractual interest under such Policy.

You  may  use  this  opinion  letter,  or  copy  hereof,  as an  exhibit  to the
Registration Statement.

We  consent to the  reference  to our Firm under the  caption  "Legal  Opinions"
contained in the Prospectus which forms a part of the Registration Statement.

Sincerely,

LEONARD, STREET AND DEINARD PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

By:/S/BARBARA L. PORTWOOD
   ----------------------
      Barbara L. Portwood
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Chirco, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the former County Court, Kings County, entered June 18,1962 after a hearing', resentencing him to serve a term of 15 to 30 years, after having been convicted on April 6, 1944 of robbery in the first degree and having been sentenced originally to serve a similar term. The resentenee was imposed pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated June 8, 1960, on the ground that the original sentence was invalid for failure to comply with section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Judgment of June 18, 1962, resentencing the defendant, affirmed. Under the circumstances of this case, the delay between the order of resentenee on June 8, 1960 and the imposition of the resentenee on Juno 18, 1962, was not unduly long or unreasonable *(People ex rel. Gassone*v. *Fay,*IS A D 2d 1095). Whatever delay ensued was occasioned by the proceedings initiated by the defendant himself subsequent to the order for resentenee. The alleged error committed at the trial in 1944 with respect to the question relating to the jury taking the exhibits to the jury room is not available on an appeal from a resentenee *(People*v. *Fa-ucetta,*301 N. Y. 758; *People*v. *Williams,*6 N Y 2d 193), especially where the defendant had appealed from the original judgment of conviction *(People*v. *Ghirco,*269 App. Div. 694). Beldoek, P. J., Ug'hetta, Christ, Hill and Raibin, JJ., concur.