alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Norman FILLMORE, Petitioner, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Respondent.

Civ. No. 70-111.

United States District Court, E. D. Oklahoma.

June 26, 1970.

Norman Fillmore, pro se.

G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., H. L. McConnell, Asst: Atty. Gen., for respondent.

ORDER

DAUGHERTY, District Judge.

Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed various papers herein which the Court considers to be an application for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that his state remedy of appeal is not adequate and effective because of excessive delay. Petitioner alleges that he filed his appeal in the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals on May 19, 1969, and that no action has been taken thereon in the intervening time of approximately thirteen months. In response to an Order to Show Cause issued by this Court, the State replies that while Petitioner was granted leave to file an appeal without costs on that date, the record on appeal, which is his responsibility to prepare and file, was not presented for filing and filed until October 14, 1969. In Oklahoma, the record on appeal consists of a casemade or transcript of the trial proceedings and it is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ jurisdiction. 22 Okl. St.Ann. § 1060; Leigh v. Johnson, 440 P.2d 375 (Okl.Cr.1968).

Thus, Petitioner’s appeal has been available to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration only since October 14, 1969, and some eight months have elapsed since that time. According to Jones v. Crouse, 360 F.2d 157 (Tenth Cir. 1966), mere delay in the disposition of a state appeal or other remedy is not a denial of a constitutional right, but that case also pointed out that a Federal District Court, without knowing the circumstances giving rise to an excessive delay, could not properly conclude that the state remedy being pursued was adequate and effective in the absence of an evidentiary hearing thereon.

However, the circumstances of this case do not call, for this Court to *405determine through the evidentiary hearing suggested by Jones v. Crouse, supra, whether Petitioner’s appeal remedy is adequate and effective. In the *Jones*case,, there was an unexplained delay of eighteen months, while here the delay is less than eight months at the present time and is satisfactorily explained. Such a delay of eight months is not deemed to be inordinate, excessive or inexcusable by this Court, especially in view of the fact presented by the affidavit of the Marshal of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals filed herein that on February 28, 1970, over five hundred cases were then pending before that three judge court.

Taking Petitioner’s papers filed with the Court in this case as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the same is denied.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Yvon Pierre Cariou, certifythat:

 

1.               I have reviewed thisquarterly report on Form 10-Q of Dynamic Materials Corporation;

 

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

 

3.               Based on my knowledge,the financial statements, and other financial information included in thisreport, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

5.               The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

a)              All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial 

 

----

 

information;and

 

b)             Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Dated:  November 9, 2005

 
|   | /s/ Yvon Pierre  Cariou                |   |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Yvon Pierre  Cariou                    |
|   | President and  Chief Executive Officer |
|   | of  Dynamic Materials Corporation      |

 

----
Case: 1:12-cv-01195 Document #: 21 Filed: 05/24/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:33
Case: 1:12-cv-01195 Document #: 21 Filed: 05/24/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:34
Case: 1:12-cv-01195 Document #: 21 Filed: 05/24/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:35
#### 1352.237-73 Foreign national visitor and guest access to departmental resources.

As prescribed in 48 CFR 1337.110-70 (e), insert the following clause:

# Foreign National Visitor and Guest Access to Departmental Resources (APR 2010)

(a) The contractor shall comply with the provisions of Department Administrative Order 207-12, Foreign National Visitor and Guest Access Program; Bureau of Industry and Security Export Administrative Regulations Part 734, and [insert operating unit counsel specific procedures]. The contractor shall provide the Government with notice of foreign nationals requiring access to any Department of Commerce facility or through a Department of Commerce IT system.

(b) The contractor shall identify each foreign national who requires access to any Departmental resources, and shall provide all requested information in writing to the Contracting Officer's Representative.

(c) The contractor shall include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph, in all subcontracts.

(End of clause)

[75 FR 10570, Mar. 8, 2010; 75 FR 14496, Mar. 26, 2010]
Case: 1:12-cv-01100 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1
Case: 1:12-cv-01100 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 2 of 9 PageID #:2
Case: 1:12-cv-01100 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 3 of 9 PageID #:3
Case: 1:12-cv-01100 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 4 of 9 PageID #:4
Case: 1:12-cv-01100 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 5 of 9 PageID #:5
Case: 1:12-cv-01100 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 6 of 9 PageID #:6
Case: 1:12-cv-01100 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 7 of 9 PageID #:7
Case: 1:12-cv-01100 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 8 of 9 PageID #:8
Case: 1:12-cv-01100 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/15/12 Page 9 of 9 PageID #:9
### §7213. Amounts available for contract payments

#### (a) Fiscal year amounts

The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, expend the following amounts to satisfy the obligations of the Secretary under all contracts:

(1) For fiscal year 1996, $5,570,000,000.

(2) For fiscal year 1997, $5,385,000,000.

(3) For fiscal year 1998, $5,800,000,000.

(4) For fiscal year 1999, $5,603,000,000.

(5) For fiscal year 2000, $5,130,000,000.

(6) For fiscal year 2001, $4,130,000,000.

(7) For fiscal year 2002, $4,008,000,000.

#### (b) Allocation

The amount made available for a fiscal year under subsection (a) shall be allocated as follows:

(1) For wheat, 26.26 percent.

(2) For corn, 46.22 percent.

(3) For grain sorghum, 5.11 percent.

(4) For barley, 2.16 percent.

(5) For oats, 0.15 percent.

(6) For upland cotton, 11.63 percent.

(7) For rice, 8.47 percent.

#### (c) Adjustment

The Secretary shall adjust the amounts allocated for each contract commodity under subsection (b) for a particular fiscal year by—

(1) adding an amount equal to the sum of all repayments of deficiency payments required under section 114(a)(2) of the Agricultural Act of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1445j(a)(2)) for the commodity;

(2) adding an amount equal to the sum of all refunds of contract payments received during the preceding fiscal year under section 7216 of this title for the commodity; and

(3) subtracting an amount equal to the amount, if any, necessary during that fiscal year to satisfy payment requirements for the commodity under sections 103B, 105B, or 107B of the Agricultural Act of 1949 for the 1994 and 1995 crop years.

#### (d) Additional rice allocation

In addition to the adjustments required under subsection (c), the amount allocated under subsection (b) for rice contract payments shall be increased by $8,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2002.

#### (e) Exclusion of certain amounts from contract payments

Any amount added pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (c) to the amount available under subsection (a) for a fiscal year and paid to owners and producers under a contract shall not be treated as a contract payment for purposes of section 7215 of this title or section 1308(1) 1 of this title. However, the amount of a payment covered by this subsection may not exceed $50,000 per person.

#### (f) Effect of payment limitation

The amount available under subsection (a) for a fiscal year shall be reduced by an amount equal to the total amount of contract payments for the fiscal year that owners and producers forgo as a result of operation of the payment limitation under section 1308(1) 1 of this title.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title I, §113, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 900.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 103B, 105B, and 107B of the Agricultural Act of 1949, referred to in subsec. (c)(3), were classified to sections 1444–2, 1444f, and 1445b–3a, respectively, of this title prior to repeal by section 7301(b)(2)(A)–(D) of this title.

Section 1308(1) of this title, referred to in subsecs. (e), (f), was repealed by Pub. L. 107–171, title I, §1603(a), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 213.

1 See References in text note below.
# Loan_vol

# Quarterly

# Historical
### §7732. Collection of information

The Secretary may gather and compile information and conduct any investigations the Secretary considers necessary for the administration and enforcement of this chapter.

(Pub. L. 106–224, title IV, §422, June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 449.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this title", meaning title IV of Pub. L. 106–224, June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 438, known as the Plant Protection Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of title IV to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 7701 of this title and Tables.

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

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of the Secretary of Agriculture relating to agricultural import and entry inspection activities under this chapter to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see sections 231, 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.
### §1591. Delegation of duties

Any duties devolving upon the Secretary of Agriculture by virtue of the provisions of this chapter may with like force and effect be executed by such officer or officers, agent or agents, of the Department of Agriculture as the Secretary may designate for the purpose.

(Aug. 9, 1939, ch. 615, title IV, §401, 53 Stat. 1285.)

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

#### Effective Date

See section 1610 of this title.
### §1252b. Repealed. Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title III, §308(b)(6), Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–615

Section, act June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title II, ch. 5, §242B, as added Nov. 29, 1990, Pub. L. 101–649, title V, §545(a), 104 Stat. 5061; amended Dec. 12, 1991, Pub. L. 102–232, title III, §306(c)(6), 105 Stat. 1753; Oct. 25, 1994, Pub. L. 103–416, title II, §219(i), 108 Stat. 4317; Sept. 30, 1996, Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title III, §371(b)(7), 110 Stat. 3009–645, related to deportation procedures. See sections 1229 and 1229a of this title.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective, with certain transitional provisions, on the first day of the first month beginning more than 180 days after Sept. 30, 1996, see section 309 of Pub. L. 104–208, set out as an Effective Date of 1996 Amendments note under section 1101 of this title.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 3, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00541

- CV

Richard LARES, Appellant

v.

Karina GUEVARA, Appellee

From the 37th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- CI

- 12518 Honorable Michael E. Mery , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

This is an appeal from an order dismissing appellant’s suit for want of prosecution. Appellant, a pro se inmate, has represented in a sworn statement to this court that he sent a response to the trial court’s dismissal notice, and has provided a copy of what he swears is a true and correct copy of his response. The response is not in the appellate record, a nd the trial court clerk has represented to this court that appellant’s response was never received by the clerk for filing.

Under the “prison mailbox rule,” a pro se inmate is deemed to have “filed” a document at the time the document is duly received by prison officials. Enriquez v. Livingston , 400 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2013, pet. denied) . A certificate of service can constitute some measure of proof of filing under the prison mailbox rule. Id. However, the certificate is not conclusive proof. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9.2(b)(2).

We therefore abate this appeal and remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing for the trial court to determine whether, and when, appellant handed his response to prison officials for mailing and filing in this case . We remand with instructions for the trial court to make specific findings on the following two questions:1. Did appellant give the attached filing to prison officials?

2. If so, on what date did appellant give the attached filing to prison officials?

We OR DER the trial court to make findings on these questions, and file a copy of a written findings of fact with the district court clerk within 30 days of this order. We further ORDER the

district court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing t he trial court’s written findings within 10 days of the date the trial court files the written findings.



### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00049-CR

FELIPE GARCIA APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 211TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. F-2012-0954-C

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s “Motion To Withdraw Notice Of Appeal.” 

The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. 

R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we 

received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: April 9, 2015
EXHIBIT 32.1
           Certification of the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18
             U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
                        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this quarterly report of Espey Mfg. & Electronics  Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof,  I, Howard  Pinsley,
President and Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  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:

      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.

Date: November 10, 2005


                                                      /s/Howard Pinsley
                                                      -----------------------
                                                      Howard Pinsley
                                                      President and
                                                      Chief Executive Officer


                                       18
Exhibit
      24








PPL
      CORPORATION





2005
      ANNUAL REPORT


TO
      THE
      SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


ON
      FORM
      10-K





POWER OF ATTORNEY








The
      undersigned directors of PPL Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, that
      is to
      file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, D.C., under the
      provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, its 2005 Annual
      Report on Form 10-K, do hereby appoint each of William F. Hecht,
      John R. Biggar and Robert J. Grey their true and lawful attorney, with
      power to act without the other and with full power of substitution and
      resubstitution, to execute for them and in their names said Form 10-K Report
      and
      any and all amendments thereto, whether said amendments add to, delete from
      or
      otherwise alter said Form 10-K Report, or add or withdraw any exhibits or
      schedules to be filed therewith and any and all instruments in connection
      therewith. The undersigned hereby grant to each said attorney full power and
      authority to do and perform in the name of and on behalf of the undersigned,
      and
      in any and all capacities, any act and thing whatsoever required or necessary
      to
      be done in and about the premises, as fully and to all intents and purposes
      as
      the undersigned might do, hereby ratifying and approving the acts of each of
      the
      said attorneys.





IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands this 24th day
      of
      February, 2006.








/s/  Frederick
                M. Bernthal
            
            /s/  James
                H. MillerFrederick
                M. Bernthal
            
            James
                H. Miller/s/  John
                W. Conway
            
            /s/  Craig
                A. RogersonJohn
                W. Conway
            
            Craig
                A. Rogerson/s/  E.
                Allen Deaver
            
            /s/  W.
                Keith SmithE.
                Allen Deaver
            
            W.
                Keith Smith/s/  Louise
                K. Goeser
            
            /s/  Susan
                M. StalneckerLouise
                K. Goeser
            
            Susan
                M. Stalnecker/s/  Stuart
                Heydt
            
            /s/  Keith
                H. WilliamsonStuart
                Heydt
            
            Keith
                H. Williamson
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Francis X. Leonard, Jr., Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment (designated in the notice of appeal as an “order”) of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered August 5, 1959, convicting him, on his plea of “ guilty ”, of *1054attempted grand larceny in the second degree, and sentencing him to serve a term of one to two years. Judgment affirmed. Appellant does not attempt to show any ground for reversal of the judgment. He claims credit for time served and asks to be granted parole. There is no authority for the granting, by this court, of parole. Nor may this court, upon an appeal from a judgment of conviction and before the maximum sentence has been served, adjudicate that a defendant is entitled to credit against the sentence for time served prior, or subsequent, to the imposition of the sentence. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.
15.504 Award to successful offeror. The contracting officer shall award a contract to the successful offeror by furnishing the executed contract or other notice of the award to that offeror. ( a ) If the award document includes information that is different than the latest signed proposal, as amended by the offeror's written correspondence, both the offeror and the contracting officer shall sign the contract award.
( b ) When an award is made to an offeror for less than all of the items that may be awarded and additional items are being withheld for subsequent award, each notice shall state that the Government may make subsequent awards on those additional items within the proposal acceptance period.
( c ) If the Optional Form (OF) 307, Contract Award, Standard Form (SF) 26, Award/Contract, or SF 33, Solicitation, Offer and Award, is not used to award the contract, the first page of the award document shall contain the Government's acceptance statement from Block 15 of that form, exclusive of the Item 3 reference language, and shall contain the contracting officer's name, signature, and date. In addition, if the award document includes information that is different than the signed proposal, as amended by the offeror's written correspondence, the first page shall include the contractor's agreement statement from Block 14 of the OF 307 and the signature of the contractor's authorized representative.