alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NOS. WR-88,182-02 WR-88,182-03

EX P ARTE COREY WEATHE RALL, Appl icant

ON AP P LICATIONS FOR WRITS OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NOS. W10-52899-U (A) AND W10- 71444-U (A ) IN THE 291S T DIST RICT COURT F ROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provi s i o n s o f Arti cle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of t h e t ri al court transmitted to this Court these applications for writs of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of two offe nses of drugpossession, and he wa s sentence d to eight y ear s in prison in each c ase. In sever al claims, Applicant alleg es that trial counsel told him these two eig ht-y ear sentenc es would run concur

rently with a fede ral sentenc e, so he ag ree d to plead guilty

. He states that the sentenc es are not running concur rently , howeve r, so his guilty pleas wer e not voluntary

. See Ex parte Huerta , 692 S.W .2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). The trial court enter ed an order desig nating issues,-2-

but there are no finding s resolving the fac tual issues. Additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Te x . C ri m . App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fa ct. The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claims. To obtain t he response , the trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). I f the trial court elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wis h es t o b e re p resented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repr esent Applica

nt at the hea

ring . T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusion s o f l aw reg arding Applicant’s habea s claims. The trial court may also make any o t h er fi n d i ng s of fac t and conclusions of law it deems re levant and a

ppropriate to the dispositi on of Applica nt’s claim for ha

beas c orpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order

. A supplemental t ra n s cript containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, alongwith the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be forwa rded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order

. Any extensions of time shall be obtained fr om this C ourt. Filed: September 26, 2018 Do not publish
Exhibit
32(d)


CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


FOR PPL
ENERGY SUPPLY, LLC'S 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008





In
connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of PPL Energy Supply, LLC (the
"Company") for the year ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I,
the principal financial officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certify that:





·
            The
      Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
    and·
            The
      information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.











Date:  February
      27, 2009
            /s/ Paul
      A. FarrPaul
      A. Farr
              Executive
      Vice President
              PPL
      Energy Supply, LLC





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Elba Mendez, as Administratrix of the Estate of Angelo Mendez et al., Appellants, v. Franklyn Goroff, Respondent.

Motion by respondent to dismiss appeal for lack of prosecution, denied on condition that appellants argue or submit the appeal at the January 1961 Term. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. On the court’s own motion, the appeal will be heard on the original papers and on printed briefs. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arthur Davis, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on May 4, 1977, unanimously affirmed. Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw is granted (see *Anders*v *California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833). We have reviewed the record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sandler, Lane and Lynch, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION 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 Ennis Business Forms,
Inc.  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending November
30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  on
the  date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harve Cathey, Chief Financial
Officer  of  the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.1350,  as
adopted pursuant to 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 the Report fairly  presents,
      in  all  material  respects, the  financial  condition  and
      result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Harve Cathey

Harve Cathey
Chief Financial Officer
December 22, 2003
### §1594. Prohibition against alterations

No person shall detach, alter, deface, or destroy any label provided for in this chapter or the rules and regulations made and promulgated thereunder by the Secretary of Agriculture, or alter or substitute seed in a manner that may defeat the purpose of this chapter.

(Aug. 9, 1939, ch. 615, title IV, §404, 53 Stat. 1286.)

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

#### Effective Date

See section 1610 of this title.
#### The Raymond Construction Corporation *v.*State of Connecticut

*John P. Kane,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Harry W. Hultgren,*assistant attorney general, for the appellant (state).

Argued October 1

decided October 1, 1974

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is granted.
| 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Avino Silver & Gold Mines Ltd.; |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: November 19, 2013 |   | /s/ Malcolm Davidson                          |   |
|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|
|                    |   | Malcolm Davidson, Principal Financial Officer |   |
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6679

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

BRADLEY SHANE SHEPPARD,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (8:04-cr-00420-HMH-1)

Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 9, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bradley Shane Sheppard, Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Bradley Shane Sheppard seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for 

reconsideration of his sentence. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 denied relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find 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 in debatable, and that 

the motion 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 Sheppard has not made the requisite showing. The district 

court lacked jurisdiction to deny Sheppard’s Rule 60(b) motion 

on the merits because the claim he raised challenged the 

validity of his sentence, and thus the motion should have been 

construed as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 
3

motion. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005) 

(explaining how to differentiate a true Rule 60(b) motion from 

an unauthorized second or successive habeas corpus petition); 

United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003) 

(same). In the absence of pre-filing authorization from this 

court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear a 

successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2006). 

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
Aaron Swank

38777 N Northwestern Ave. Wadsworth, IL 60083
- 8601 847
- 336
- 8030 m lbboy21@gmail.com EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR CFR 65.71(a)(2) I seek relief from CFR 65.71(a)(2), which specifically states that to be eligible for a mechanic certificate and associated ratings, a person must “Be able to read, write, speak, and understand the English language, or in the case of an applicant who does not meet this requirement and who is employed outside of the United States by a U.S. air carrier, have his certif

icate endorsed “Valid onl y outside the United States.” I am a deaf person who communicates in sign language (manual English) and is able to read lips to a limited extent. I am unable to speak English but am able to read, write , and understand English. I am currently

enrolled at Milwaukee Area Technical College in Milwaukee, WI , in an airframe and powerplant program and will be eligible to take the written, oral, and practical examination. I

have completed the general and airframe and will finish with the powerplant curriculum this coming year 2015. With the aid of an interpreter I have been able to perform all the FAA
- approved curriculum requirements for certification as an aircraft mechanic. I will meet all the requirements of CFR 65.71 except for th e requirement that I speak English. Alth ough I am deaf and speech impaired, this does not cause an adverse effect on safety. I am meticulous about my work an d more than able to interpret and apply

written technical information. Even though I am unable t o speak English and cannot hear
. I am able to communicate with others b y writing and by using sign language with an interpreter. I am a current Private Pilot with the restriction description of: Not valid for fl yi ng where radio use is required. An exemp tion from CFR 65.71(a)(2) would enable me to use a sign language interpreter to take the oral and practic al examinations for the mechanic certificate and associat ed ratings, because I am deaf and speech impaired. I would like to reference two granted petitions:  Exemption No. 9951, Regulatory Docket No. FAA
- 2009
- 0943  Exemption No. 6015, Regulatory Docket No. 27810
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000033015
<NAME> TXU GAS COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        1,358
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        840
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,192
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                            27
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     116
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,533
<COMMON>                                             0
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                        1,015
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                (25)
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                     990
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              147
<PREFERRED>                                         75
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                               901
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   1
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   1,419
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    3,533
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        1,350
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                                18
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,288
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,288
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                             62
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                   0
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                      62
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            18
<NET-INCOME>                                        26
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          1
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                       25
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                              76
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00


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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule Contains Summary Financial Information Extracted From The
Financial Statements As Of December 31, 1997 And For The Twelve Months
Then Ended And Is Qualified In Its Entirety By Reference To Such
Financial Statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                              43
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     7
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      50
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,584
<BONDS>                                            525
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,053)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        50
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   107
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        6
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     7
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  83
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     11
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 11
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        11
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       11


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on December 10, 2020, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), UHD Alliance, Inc. (“UHD Alliance”) filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Fengmi (Beijing) Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, PEOPLE's REPUBLIC OF CHINA, has been added as a party to this venture.                

In addition, Charter Communications, St. Louis, MO; Technicolor SA, Cedex, FRANCE; and Westinghouse Electronics, Eastvale, CA have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and UHD Alliance intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

                    On June 17, 2015, UHD Alliance filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on July 17, 2015 (80 FR 42537).                

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 22, 2020. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on October 15, 2020(85 FR 65425).                

Suzanne Morris, 

Chief, Premerger and Division Statistics, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2021-00454 Filed 1-12-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-P
THIEF RI FALLS

REGIONAL

February 27, 2014

;. 'j

~\. r , -~ :.::.

!. ~\-~.

Dennis J. De Vany, Chief

Essential Air Service Division

Office of Aviation Analysis

Mr. DeVany,

On February 5, 2014 Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. submitted a proposal to continue service to

Thief River Falls, MN. The new contract, which would extend for two years starting June 1,

2014, included three service options. The first option is to provide two roundtrips daily to

Minneapolis/St. Paul utilizing a Beech 1900D aircraft configured to nine seats. The second

option calls for two one-stop roundtrips daily to Denver utilizing the Embraer 120 configured to

30 seats. It is our understanding that these two options may also be combined to provide a third

option, one daily roundtrip to Minneapolis/St. Paul and one daily roundtrip to Denver utilizing

the Beech 1900D and Embraer 120 respectively.

After careful consideration the Thief River Falls Regional Airport Authority has decided to

recommend Great Lakes Aviation begin service under the third option identified above. It is the

Airport Authority's belief that by offering multiple destinations to hub airports, travelers will

receive better access to the national air transportation network.

The Airport Authority's recommendation does not come without concern. First and foremost is

Great Lakes Aviation's ability to achieve 98% reliability as identified in its proposal. As we

have seen, Great Lakes Aviation is currently experiencing a severe pilot shortage, causing the

reliability of its air service to sink below 40% in January 2014. Service was altogether

suspended February 1,2014, until such time the Airline can rebuild its pilot crews and resume

service under a 135 split operating certificate. While the Airport Authority looks forward to the

day service can be restored, we feel it would be counterproductive to begin service should

anything less than 95% of scheduled flights be completed. Even then it will take many months if

not years to rebuild the confidence our travelers have in the carrier. For this reason the Airport

Authority wishes to reserve the right to rebid our route should service not resume by June I,

2014 or should reliability dip below reasonable levels once service has resumed.

Additionally the Airport Authority is concerned that a FAA requirement to physically remove

seats from Great Lakes' aircraft prior to commencing a 135 operation is arbitrarily placing a

burden on the Airline. We believe this mandate will only further delay the return of air service

to Thief River Falls and make the transition back to a 121 operation more difficult once qualified

First Officers are available.

Respectfully,

;g fI/~

~iCk ,

Airport Manager

13722 Airport Drive

P.O. Box 672

Thief River Falls, I'v1f\J 5670'1

21 8-681 -7680

vvwvv.trfai rport. (0 III

trfai rport@m ncablc .nct
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2011-1090

Directorate Identifier: 2011NM138AD

84-52-69, RB --- 5/9/11

84-52-69, RA --- 4/26/11

84-52-69 --- 1/28/11

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008