alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered August 10, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00672-CV

IN RE PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE, INC., PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE TEXAS, LLC, 

MARIE DIAZ, C. JOHN SCHEEF, ANNA S. BROOKS, 

AND BRANDY K. CHAMBERS, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-08581

ORDER

Before the Court is real party in interest Ruth Torres’ motion for free appellate record. 

She asks this Court to order the district court clerk and the court reporter to prepare a free 

appellate record consisting of the transcripts of six hearings. We DENY the motion. 

Torres has filed a “Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal 

Bond” in this original proceeding. Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 20.1(a) and 

20.1(c), Torres is, therefore, allowed to proceed without payment of the appellate court filing 

fees. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(a),(c). However, fees charged by the trial court clerk or court 

reporter for preparation of the appellate record, if necessary, are governed by Texas Rule of Civil 

Procedure 145. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(a); TEX. R. CIV. P. 145. Torres has not shown that Rule 

145 proceedings have occurred in the court below and does not seek relief from an order 
requiring Torres to pay for the requested transcripts. Accordingly, we deny the motion without 

prejudice to Torres pursuing available remedies under Rule 145. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of CEO Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
As Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of DRS Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark S. Newman, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of DRS Technologies, Inc.,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



|February 8, 2008 |  | /s/MARK S. NEWMANMark S. Newman Chairman of the Board, President and
Chief Executive Officer
|---------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY
DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

---



QuickLinks
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 5, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-10057

Summary Calendar

RONROYAL J. OWENS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:03-CV-1333

USDC No. 3:03-CV-1334

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

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ronroyal J. Owens, Texas prisoner # 851492, moves this court

for a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the denial of

a FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motion. The Rule 60(b) motion was taken

from the dismissal as time-barred of Owens’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254

application challenging his convictions for indecency with a

child and attempted aggravated sexual assault of a child under

the age of fourteen.
No. 06-10057

-2-

A COA is required for an appeal from “the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). The denial

of Owens’s Rule 60(b) motion is not such an order. See Gonzalez

v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005); Dunn v. Cockrell, 302 F.3d

491, 492 (5th Cir. 2002). The motion for a COA is denied as

unnecessary.

A district court’s denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed

for abuse of discretion. Warfield v. Byron, 436 F.3d 551, 555

(5th Cir. 2006). Owens argues that the district court erred by

failing to find that he was prevented from filing his § 2254

application by a state-created impediment as in Egerton v.

Cockrell, 334 F.3d 433, 437-39 (5th Cir. 2003). Rule 60(b) may

not be used as a substitute for an appeal. See Seven Elves, Inc.

v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981). As Owens has not

shown that the district court abused its discretion by denying

his Rule 60(b) motion, the judgment of the district court is

affirmed. 

MOTION FOR COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; AFFIRMED.
§ 1615.4 Duty of persons required to register. A person required by selective service law to register has the duty: ( a ) To complete the registration process by a method prescribed by the Director of Selective Service and to record thereon his name, date of birth, sex, Social Security Account Number (SSAN), current mailing address, permanent residence, telephone number, date signed, and signature, if requested; and
( b ) To submit for inspection, upon request, evidence of his identity to a person authorized to accept the registration information. Evidence of identity may be a birth certificate, motor vehicle operator's license, student's identification card, United States Passport, or a similar document.
[45 FR 48130, July 18, 1980, as amended at 65 FR 60101, Oct. 10, 2000]
No. A-682 (89-1399).

#### International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California et al. *v.*George et al.

Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist. Application for stay, presented to Justice O’Connor, and by her referred to the Court, granted, and it is ordered that execution and enforcement of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, case No. D007153, entered August 30, 1989, and modified September 29, 1989, and that execution and enforcement of the order of the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of Orange, case No. 27 75 65, entered March 16, 1990, are stayed pending this Court’s action on the petition for writ of certiorari. Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay terminates automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, this stay shall continue pending issuance of the mandate of this Court.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

559 

KA 12-01078 

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

MICHAEL F.-S., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

(APPEAL NO. 1.) 

 

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (VINCENT F. GUGINO OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DAVID A. HERATY OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (M.

William Boller, A.J.), rendered May 15, 2012. The judgment convicted

defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed. 

Entered: May 2, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
§ 944.16 State regulatory program amendment provisions not approved. ( a ) The State of Utah submitted a proposed amendment to Utah's coal regulatory program, by letter dated April 12, 2012. The State prepared the proposed amendment in response to legislation (House Bill 399) enacted by the Utah Legislature in 2011 (Utah Code Ann. sec. 78B-5-828). The proposed amendment, which would require an environmental litigation bond be posted by a plaintiff seeking an administrative stay or a court-ordered injunction before any relief was granted, is not approved.
( b ) [Reserved]
[89 FR 66222, Aug. 15, 2024]
Editorial Note on Part 817
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 54999, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 817 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93418, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 817.73 Disposal of excess spoil: Durable rock fills. The regulatory authority may approve the alternative method of disposal of excess durable rock spoil by gravity placement in single or multiple lifts, provided the following conditions are met: ( a ) Except as provided in this section, the requirements of § 817.71 are met.
( b ) The excess spoil consists of at least 80 percent, by volume, durable, nonacid- and nontoxic-forming rock (*e.g.,* sandstone or limestone) that does not slake in water and will not degrade to soil material. Where used, noncemented clay shale, clay spoil, soil or other nondurable excess spoil material shall be mixed with excess durable rock spoil in a controlled manner such that no more than 20 percent of the fill volume, as determined by tests performed by a registered engineer and approved by the regulatory authority, is not durable rock.
( c ) A qualified registered professional engineer certifies that the design will ensure the stability of the fill and meet all other applicable requirements.
( d ) The fill is designed to attain a minimum long-term static safety factor of 1.5, and an earthquake safety factor of 1.1.
( e ) The underdrain system may be constructed simultaneously with excess spoil placement by the natural segregation of dumped materials, provided the resulting underdrain system is capable of carrying anticipated seepage of water due to rainfall away from the excess spoil fill and from seeps and springs in the foundation of the disposal area and the other requirements for drainage control are met.
( f ) Surface water runoff from areas adjacent to and above the fill is not allowed to flow onto the fill and is diverted into stabilized diversion channels designed to meet the requirements of § 817.43 and to safely pass the runoff from a 100-year, 6-hour precipitation event.
[48 FR 32929, July 19, 1983, as amended at 81 FR 93418, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54999, Nov. 17, 2017]
### §3355f. Funding

#### (a) Authorization of appropriations

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to carry out the provisions of this subchapter amounts as follows:

(1) For fiscal year 2001, $650,000.

(2) For each fiscal year after fiscal year 2001, such sums as may be necessary for such fiscal year.

#### (b) Funding requests

The President shall include in the budget submitted to Congress for each fiscal year under section 1105 of title 31 a request for amounts for the activities of the Board under this subchapter during such fiscal year.

(Pub. L. 106–567, title VII, §708, Dec. 27, 2000, 114 Stat. 2863.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly set out in a note under section 3161 of this title.
**Exhibit 23**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements (Form S-8 No. 33-17642, Form S-8 No. 33-45131, Form S-8 No.33-45132, Form S-8 No. 33-62863, Form S-8 No. 33-64860, Form S-8 No. 33-72494,Form S-8 No. 33-77586, Form S-8 No. 33-77590, Form S-8 No. 333-74873, Form S-8No. 333-68103, Form S-8 No. 333-61089, Form S-8 No. 333-28009, Form S-4 No.333-79839, Form S-3 No. 33-85898, Form S-8 No. 333- 89127, Form S-3 No.333-90560, Form S-8 No. 333-101328, Form S-8 No. 333-111487 and Form S-8 No.333-111488) of Intervoice, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated April 6,2004, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule ofIntervoice, Inc. and subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) forthe year ended February 29, 2004.      ERNST & YOUNG LLP
# C_2023295EN.01000301.xml

| 21.8.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.8.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/3

---

Notice for the attention of certain persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine

(2023/C 295/03)

The following information is brought to the attention of Mr. Sergey Viktorovich CHEMEZOV (No. 118), Ms Ekaterina IGNATOVA (No. 922), Ms Anastasia IGNATOVA (No. 923), Ms Lyudmila RUKAVISHNIKOVA (No 924), Mr. Pavel Evgenevich PRIGOZHIIN (No. 1174), persons appearing in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/145/CFSP (1) and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 (2) concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.

The Council has received information that will be considered within the framework of the annual review of the restrictive measures. The above-mentioned persons are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the elements the Council holds in its file regarding their designation, before 28 August 2023 (3), to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

---

(1)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 16.

(2)  OJ L 78, 17.3.2014, p. 6.

(3)  Or one week after publication of the notice if approval by the Council is later than 18 August 2023.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Gerard J. Lucke, Appellant.

Motion by appellant to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including the typed minutes) and on a typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file six copies of his brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is further enlarged to the February Term, beginning January 30, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. Motion for assignment of counsel granted. David A. Wallaeh, Esquire, 32 Court St, Brooklyn 1, New York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
#### The People, ex rel. Isaac Evans, Appellant, v. The Board of Commissioners of Public Works, Respondent. The People, ex rel. Belton, Appellant, *v.*Same Respondent.

(Argued February 3, 1882;

decided February 10, 1882.)

*Nelson J. Waterrbv/ry*for appellants.

*D. J. Deem*for respondents.

Agree to dismiss appeal; no opinion.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2023120EN.01000201.xml

| 3.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 120/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/2

---

Notice for the attention of ‘RT Arabic’ and ‘Sputnik Arabic’, regarding the application of Council Decision 2014/512/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine

(2023/C 120/02)

The Council has concluded that the restrictive measures referred to in Article 4g of Decision 2014/512/CFSP (1) and Article 2f of Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (2) are to apply from 10 April 2023 in respect of the entities set out in point (3) of the Annex to Decision (CFSP) 2023/434 (3) and Annex V of Regulation (EU) 2023/427 (4).

The entities concerned are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council before 26 May 2023, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them under the restrictive measures should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1 |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

Any observations received will be taken into account for the purpose of the Council’s periodic review, pursuant to Article 9(2) of Decision 2014/512/CFSP.

---

(1)  OJ L 229, 31.7.2014, p. 13.

(2)  OJ L 229, 31.7.2014, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 59 I, 25.2.2023, p. 593.

(4)  OJ L 59 I, 25.2.2023, p. 6.

---
#### § 147.20 Exception to periods of coverage.

Some elements of standards specify a period of coverage (e.g. seven years). Where appropriate, such coverage may be shortened to the period from the subject's eighteenth birthday to the present or to two years, whichever is longer.
BF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0614

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER I TOULOUSE,

Defendant and Appellant.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including January 8, 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve its 

response brief.

12/04/2023

Case Number: DA 21-0614
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1138 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1138

  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to deny certain 
 privileges of the House of Representatives to former Members who have 
         been expelled from the House, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 12, 2024

Mr. D'Esposito (for himself, Mr. LaLota, and Mr. Lawler) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to deny certain 
 privileges of the House of Representatives to former Members who have 
         been expelled from the House, and for other purposes.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This resolution may be cited as the ``Upholding the Integrity of 
Our Institution Resolution''.

SEC. 2. DENYING ADMISSION TO HALL OF THE HOUSE TO FORMER MEMBERS WHO 
              HAVE BEEN EXPELLED.

    Clause 4(a) of rule IV of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (3);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (4) 
        and inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(5) has been expelled from the House.''.

SEC. 3. BENEFITS AND SERVICES PROVIDED TO CERTAIN FORMER MEMBERS OF THE 
              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

    Rule XXIX of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended 
by adding at the end the following new clause:
    ``5. In the case of a former Member, Delegate, or Resident 
Commissioner who has been expelled from the House of Representatives, 
such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not retain 
possession of a Member pin after such expulsion and no benefit or 
service of the House shall be made available to such former Member, 
Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, including any of the following:
            ``(a) Access to the floor of the House.
            ``(b) Access to athletic facilities and other facilities 
        available for the use of Members of the House.
            ``(c) Access to the Members' Dining Room located in the 
        House of Representatives wing of the United States Capitol.
            ``(d) Access to parking spaces.
            ``(e) Access to material from the House document room.
            ``(f) Use of the collections in the House Legislative 
        Resource Center without borrowing privileges.
            ``(g) Short-term franking privileges.
            ``(h) Access to materials through the Congressional 
        Research Service and the Library of Congress.''.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 28, 2009

s0921 

# Order

September 28, 2009

137716

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 137716 COA: 276599 Oakland CC: 2006-207259-FH AKILI EUGENE ARMSTRONG, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 16, 2008 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY

, C.J., would grant leave to appeal for the reasons set forth in her opinion in People v Idziak , 484 Mich 549 (2009).

C AVANAGH

, J., would grant leave to ap peal to reconsider People v Idziak , 484 Mich 549 (2009).
Appeal No. 76-240.

#### Frank J. Trivisonno *et al. v.*R. A. Beaufort & Sons, Inc.

*Alfred G. Thibodeau,*for plaintiffs.

*Thomas A. Lynch,*for defendant.

The defendant’s motion to remand this case to the Superior Court for hearing on his motion for relief from judgment on the grounds of misrepresentation and misconduct of the adverse party pursuant to Sup. R. Civ. P. 60(b), is granted.

Bevilacqua, C. J., not participating.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION AND CONDENSED STATEMENT OF INCOME AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          70,256
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  207,530
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,777
<INVENTORY>                                    167,054
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               477,670
<PP&E>                                         739,381
<DEPRECIATION>                                 383,049
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,002,210
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          244,586
<BONDS>                                        179,764
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,984
<OTHER-SE>                                     368,819
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,002,210
<SALES>                                        592,528
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               597,198
<CGS>                                          376,377
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  376,377
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,679
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 59,743
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,910
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             30,647
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    30,647
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.31
        

</TABLE>