alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-18-00306-CV

____________________

JAMES B. DAVIS, Appellant

V.

MARILYN BRYAN, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the 284th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 15-11-11701-CV

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On August 15, 2018, we notified the parties that the notice of appeal did not 

appear to have been timely filed. The appellant, James B. Davis, did not file a 

response.

The trial court signed the judgment on March 7, 2018. By filing a motion for 

new trial within thirty days of the date of the judgment, Davis extended the time for 

perfecting his appeal to June 5, 2018. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1). Davis filed a 

notice of appeal on August 10, 2018, but by that date his notice was untimely and 
2

outside the period for which we may extend the applicable appellate deadline. See

Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(a)(1), 26.3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

 STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on September 26, 2018

Opinion Delivered September 27, 2018

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         136,802
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,181,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                    60,000
<INVENTORY>                                    558,248
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,243,145
<PP&E>                                         283,928
<DEPRECIATION>                                 119,850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,435,477
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,138,917
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        97,593
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     221,617
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,435,477
<SALES>                                      1,262,765
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,280,249
<CGS>                                           39,654
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  735,334
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             132,767
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                412,148
<INCOME-TAX>                                   140,523
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            271,625
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   271,625
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .070
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .070
        

</TABLE>
[No. 9517.

*En Banc.*

August 8, 1911.]

#### James T. Wentworth, *Appellant,*v. John R. Moore *et al., Respondents.*
      *1*

Attachment—Dissolution—Failure to Give Bond—Condition Precedent. On motion to dissolve an attachment erroneously issued without a bond, leave to file a bond is properly denied, the statute making the filing of, a bond á condition precedent to an attachment.

Appeal from an order of the superior court for King county, Sheeks, J., entered January 31, 1911, discharging an attachment, after a hearing before the court.

Affirmed.

*Geo. D. Emery (W. D. Covington,*of counsel), for appellant.

*Reynolds, Ballinger Sj- Hutson,*for respondents.

Reported in 117 Pac. 251.

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order dissolving an attachment. Plaintiff, at the time of filing his complaint, filed an affidavit for a writ of attachment to be levied on real estate only, alleging, among other things, that the defendants were nonresidents. The writ was issued and levied upon the real estate referred to. The defendants entered their appearance, and moved to vacate and quash the writ of attachment on the ground that the defendants were residents of the state of Washington prior to,' at the time of, and subsequent to the issuance of the writ. This question was tried out on affidavits furnished by both parties, and the court found that the defendants were residents of the state, and decreed the dissolution of the attachment. We have read the affidavits and do not feel justified in disturbing the findings of the court in that regard. The plaintiff then offered to file a bond, which offer we think was properly denied by the court, the statute making the execution and filing of a bond a condition precedent to the issuance of the writ. The *452question objected to by defendants, which objection was sustained by the court, was irrelevant and immaterial, as it did not touch on the subject of residence; and without a bond the attachment should not have issued.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### State Division of Human Rights, Respondent, v Stromberg Carlson Corporation, Petitioner, and I. U. E., Local No. 338, Respondent.

Determination unanimously reversed insofar as it awarded damages and otherwise confirmed, without costs, and matter remitted to State Division of Human Rights for further proceedings in accordance with memorandum in *SDHR (Truitt) v Stromberg Carlson Corp.*(66 AD2d 990). (Proceeding pursuant to Executive Law, § 298.) Present,-Moule, J. P., Cardamone, Simons, Dillon and Hancock, Jr., JJ.
#### § 947.955 Certification of blasters.

Part 955 of this chapter, *Certification of Blasters in Federal Program States and on Indian Lands,* shall apply to the training, examination and certification of blasters for surface coal mining and reclamation operations.

[51 FR 19462, May 29, 1986]
Responses to Questions EPA Posed in December 20, 2012 Final Ruleon Commercial and Industrial SolidWaste Incineration Units:Reconsideration and Final Amendments; Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid Waste: Final RuleNon-Pulp & Paper Facilities# Industry Sector Boiler Type (kilns, stoker,circulating fluidized bed,etc.)Traditional Fuel QuestionsFuel Type i.e. fuel oil, #6 bunker C, etc. % BoilerCan BurnTraditionalFuel11 Power Plant stoker boilers with travelinggrates to remove the ashStartup with natural gas then go to 100% coal to100% biomass. They prefer at least 50% biomass.With 50% or more biomass that may use the ash asfertilizer.0%2 Electricity generator. Power and steamgeneration only. Consumes all steam andsome power but most is sold to the grid.Stoker Has used fuel oil inthe past. 100% biomass includingscrap ties, are used as fuel. NG used only after aplant shutdown to restart.100%3 Electricity generator. Power and steamgeneration only. Consumes all steam andsome power but most is sold to the grid.2 cogeneration stations, oneusing a stoker and the otheruses the fluidized bed.100% biomass including scrap ties, are used as fuel.NG used only after a plant shutdown to restart. Fueloil can be burned if nozzles were installed.0%4 Electricity generator. Produces power andsteam. Consumes all steam and some powerbut most is sold to the grid.Stoker Capable of burning fuel oil but does so only for startup. Burns 100% biomass including scrap ties.100%5 Generating Station/Resource RecoveryFacilityFluidized Bed Boiler (x2) Wood Waste100%6 Power Generation Traveling GrateGround up railroad ties, biomass (bark and sawdust)from satellite wood-yards & sawmills and forestresiduals from clearing. Originally designed to burncoal.0%7 Paper/Power Bubbling BedCurrently- Biomass, coal, ground up railroad ties, TDFsludge.Next Phase: All the above except coal.0%8 Electrical Power Traveling Grate Whole railroad ties, creosote treated wood, clean,untreated construction & demolition wood0%9 Power GeneratingTraveling GrateBiomass-yard waste-C&D-landfill gas-TDF, ground uprailroad ties0%10 Power Generation Circulation fluidized bed Natural Gas, recycled material (agricultural biomass,railroad ties). Cannot burn fuel oil at this time.0%11 Power Generation Traveling grate boiler Natural Gas, propane,recycled materials (agricultural biomass, cleanconstruction wood, railroad ties), could burn liquid fuelwithout modification to the boiler if an appropriatedelivery system was installed0%1It should be noted that the boilers could be retrofit with nozzles and a delivery system to burn fuel oil and other liquid fuels but the facilities showing 0% do not have thosesystems installed at the present time.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7056

JERRY W. NELSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

LIEBER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District

Judge. (6:05-cv-02660-HMH)

Submitted: September 26, 2006 Decided: October 3, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry W. Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jerry W. Nelson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended

that relief be denied and advised Nelson that failure to file

timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate

review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

Despite this warning, Nelson failed to object to the magistrate

judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate

judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of

the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been

warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins,

766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140 (1985). Nelson has waived appellate review by failing to

timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### § 239.2 Applicability and scope.

This part applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Military Departments (including the U.S. Coast Guard), the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, the Combatant Commands, the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Defense Agencies, DoD Field Activities, and all other organizational entities within the Department of Defense (hereafter referred to collectively as the “DoD Components”). This part for Expanded HAP is applicable until September 30, 2012, or as otherwise extended by law.
### [§4514. Repealed. Pub. L. 102–487, §1(a), Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3134]

Section, added Pub. L. 97–35, title XVII, §1703(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 756; amended Pub. L. 99–145, title XII, §1225(b)(1)(A), Nov. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 730; Pub. L. 100–611, §1(a), Nov. 5, 1988, 102 Stat. 3179, provided that no award could be made under this subchapter after Sept. 30, 1990.
Order entered March 8, 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 18

- 01476

- CR

MITCHELL LEE WILLIAM SON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 397 th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 068084



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s March 7, 2019 motion for extension of time to file his

brief. We GRANT the motion and ORDER appellant’s brief filed on or before May 7, 2 019.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
#### DOLFF, Appellant, v. DEY et al., Respondents.

(Supreme Court. Appellate Division. Fourth Department.

January 6, 1903.)

Action by Myer Dolff against Robert Dey and others.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
### §453a. Additional uses of appropriated funds

In fiscal year 2004 and thereafter, unless otherwise provided, funds may be used for purchase of uniforms without regard to the general purchase price limitation for the current fiscal year; purchase of insurance for official motor vehicles operated in foreign countries; entering into contracts with the Department of State to furnish health and medical services to employees and their dependents serving in foreign countries; services authorized by section 3109 of title 5; and the hire and purchase of motor vehicles, as authorized by section 1343 of title 31: Provided, That purchase for police-type use of passenger vehicles may be made without regard to the general purchase price limitation for the current fiscal year.

(Pub. L. 108–90, title V, §505, Oct. 1, 2003, 117 Stat. 1153.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004, and not as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which comprises this chapter.
### Part B—Inspector General
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of Management and Budget

# AGENCY:

Office of Management and Budget

# ACTION:

Revisions to Appendix C of OMB Circular A-94

# SUMMARY:

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) revised Circular A-94 in 1992. With this action, OMB has revised the Circular and specified certain discount rates to be updated annually when the interest rate and inflation assumptions used to prepare the Budget of the United States Government were changed. These updated discount rates are found in Appendix C of the revised Circular and are to be used for cost-effectiveness analysis, including lease-purchase analysis, as specified in the revised Circular. These rates do not apply to regulatory analysis.

                        The revised Circular can be accessed at                         *https://www.whitehouse.gov/​wp-content/​uploads/​2020/​12/​Appendix-C.pdf.*

# DATES:

The revised discount rates will be in effect through December 2021.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rachel Hernández, Office of Economic Policy, Office of Management and Budget, (202) 395-3585.

Gideon Lukens,

Deputy Associate Director for Economic Policy.

[FR Doc. 2020-28650 Filed 12-28-20; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3110-01-P
April 6, 1977.

M. P. No. 77-49.

#### Gilbane Building Company *v.*Vincent Cianci, Jr., *et al.*

*John T. Walsh, Jr.,*for plaintiff.

*Ronald H. Glantz,*Acting City 'Solicitor, *Abedon & Visconti Ltd., Girard R. Visconti,*for Capaldi Bros.

Corporation-Campanella Corporation, for defendants.

Defendant, Capaldi Bros. Corporation-Campanella Corporation, has elected not to furnish the bond required by our order in this case of March 18, 1977. Accordingly, the stay previously granted by that order is hereby vacated.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 Wilmot Energy Center, LLC
EG20-240-000Mohave County Wind Farm LLC
EG20-241-000 Weaver Wind Maine Master Tenant, LLCEG20-242-000Weaver Wind, LLC
EG20-243-000Harts Mill Solar, LLC
EG20-244-000Townsite Solar, LLC
EG20-245-000Altamont Winds LLC
EG20-246-000Bluebell Solar II, LLC
EG20-247-000Concho Bluff LLC
EG20-248-000Hill Top Energy Center LLC
EG20-249-000Topaz Generating, LLC
EG20-250-000Muscle Shoals Solar, LLC
EG21-1-000Fort Hills Energy LP
FC20-15-000]
 Take notice that during the month of November 2020, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2020). Dated: December 14, 2020. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2020-27926 Filed 12-17-20; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
LILBURN NUNNELLEE, II
, Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM BOYETTE, WILLIAM BOYETTE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF LINDA CASH BOYETTE, DECEASED

, Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 13

- 5341

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 5, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Linda L. Nobles , Judge

.
Lilburn Nunnellee, II, pro se , Appellant.

Michael W. Kehoe of Fuller, Johnson, Kehoe, Horky & Rettig, LLC., Pensacola

, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

VAN NORTWICK

, PADOVANO

, and MARSTILLER

, J J

. , CONCUR.
Exhibit 13.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. §1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Samex Mining Corp. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “Report”), I, Larry D. McLean, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





“Larry D. McLean”


Larry D. McLean


Chief Financial Officer


June
  6, 2012
### §5923. Quarters allowances

(a) When Government owned or rented quarters are not provided without charge for an employee in a foreign area, one or more of the following quarters allowances may be granted when applicable:

(1) A temporary subsistence allowance for the reasonable cost of temporary quarters (including meals and laundry expenses) incurred by the employee and his family—

(A) for a period not in excess of 90 days after first arrival at a new post of assignment in a foreign area or a period ending with the occupation of residence quarters, whichever is shorter; and

(B) for a period of not more than 30 days immediately before final departure from the post after the necessary evacuation of residence quarters.

(2) A living quarters allowance for rent, heat, light, fuel, gas, electricity, and water, without regard to section 3324(a) and (b) of title 31.

(3) Under unusual circumstances, payment or reimbursement for extraordinary, necessary, and reasonable expenses, not otherwise compensated for, incurred in initial repairs, alterations, and improvements to the privately leased residence of an employee at a post of assignment in a foreign area, if—

(A) the expenses are administratively approved in advance; and

(B) the duration and terms of the lease justify payment of the expenses by the Government.

(b) The 90-day period under subsection (a)(1)(A) and the 30-day period under subsection (a)(1)(B) may each be extended for not more than 60 additional days if the head of the agency concerned or his designee determines that there are compelling reasons beyond the control of the employee for the continued occupancy of temporary quarters.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 511; Pub. L. 97–258, §3(a)(15), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1063; Pub. L. 102–138, title I, §147(d), Oct. 28, 1991, 105 Stat. 669.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 3036. | Sept. 6, 1960, Pub. L. 86–707, §211, 74 Stat. 793. |

Statutes at Large

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1991—Pub. L. 102–138 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), substituted "subsistence" for "lodging" and inserted "(including meals and laundry expenses)" after "quarters" in par. (1), substituted "90 days" for "3 months" in par. (1)(A), substituted "30 days" for "1 month" in par. (1)(B), and added subsec. (b).

1982—Par. (2). Pub. L. 97–258 substituted "section 3324(a) and (b)" for "section 529".
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Reilly, Appellant.

Judgment of the County Court, Westchester County, rendered April 4,1977, affirmed (see *People v Iannone,*45 NY2d 589; *People v Jackson,*46 NY2d 721). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
#### § 22.800 Purpose and relation to other parts.

This subpart sets forth grants officers' and DoD Components' responsibilities for post-award administration, by providing DoD-specific requirements on payments; debt collection; claims, disputes and appeals; and closeout audits.
§ 1907.24. Initial determination. ( a ) Formal challenges shall be directed to the CIA Information and Privacy Coordinator (Coordinator) who shall promptly forward the challenge to the C/CMCG for action. The C/CMCG shall be responsible for the administrative processing of the challenge consistent with this section.
( b ) Within 10 business days of receipt of a challenge, the Coordinator shall record the receipt of the challenge and provide the challenger with written acknowledgement of the Agency's receipt.
( c ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, the Agency shall render an initial written response to a challenge within 60 business days of receipt.
( d ) If the C/CMCG determines that the Agency is unable to respond with a determination within 60 business days of receipt of the challenge, C/CMCG will inform the Coordinator who will provide the challenger with written notice of the date by which the Agency will respond and a statement that if no Agency response is received within 120 business days, the challenger has the right to have the challenge forwarded to the ISCAP, and may exercise this right through C/CMCG who will then forward the challenge to ISCAP.
( e ) The C/CMCG, after consultation with the originator of the information and other parties shall inform the Coordinator of the initial decision on the challenge and the Coordinator shall promptly inform the challenger of the decision in writing and inform the challenger of the right to appeal to the ARP if the challenge was denied.
[76 FR 59032, Sept. 23, 2011]