alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-83,117-01

EX PARTE FRANCISCO ARZATE, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1317247-A IN THE 232ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of capital murder

and sentenced to imprisonment for life without parole. The First Court of Appeals affirmed his

conviction. No. 01-12-01074-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1 Dist.] Dec. 17, 2013) (not designated st

for publication). 

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

did not timely file a petition for discretionary review. We remanded this application to the trial court
2

for supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit, the trial court

has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to file a timely

petition for discretionary review. 

We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition

for discretionaryreview of the judgment of the First Court of Appeals in Cause No. 01-12-01074-CR

that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 131724701010 from the 232 District Court of Harris nd

County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with this Court within 30 days of

the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: October 14, 2015

Do not publish
#### § 29.75b Display of baled flue-cured tobacco on auction warehouse floors in designated markets.

Each lot of baled flue-cured tobacco displayed for sale on auction warehouse floors shall have a minimum of 30 inches from side to side between rows with the open side of the bale facing the aisles. Distance between lots of baled tobacco within the row shall be no less than 18 inches between immediately adjacent lots.

[65 FR 46086, July 27, 2000]
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2407 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2407

     To reauthorize the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 2013

Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York (for himself, Mr. Gibson, and Mrs. 
    Lowey) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To reauthorize the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF HUDSON RIVER VALLEY NATIONAL HERITAGE 
              AREA.

    Section 910 of the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area Act 
of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public Law 104-333; 127 Stat. 420) is 
amended by striking ``2013'' and inserting ``2022''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jeremias Torres et al., Respondents, v City University of New York et al., Defendants, and Dormitory Authority of State of New York, Appellant.

[815 NYS2d 279]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Dormitory Authority of the State of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.), dated November 5, 2004, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

On September 28, 2001, the infant plaintiff sustained personal injuries when he slipped on water in the gymnasium of LaGuardia Community College. The premises in question was owned by the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (hereinafter the Dormitory Authority) and leased to the City University of the City of New York (hereinafter CUNY). In support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, the Dormitory Authority noted that “[djuring the prior year when he was a freshman [the plaintiff] saw water on the gym floor on a regular basis” and “he saw buckets on the floor catch water on four or five occasions.” The Dormitory Authority also acknowledged that it was “involved in construction or rehabilitation projects at LaGUARDIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE at the request of CUNY.”

In support of its claim that it did not create a defect contributing to the accident the Dormitory Authority stated that “[f]or at least five months prior to the subject accident there were no ongoing construction or rehabilitation projects at the gymnasium involving the DORMITORY AUTHORITY.” The Dormitory Authority’s Froject Manager submitted an affidavit stating *893that “between April 2001 and the date of [the infant] plaintiffs alleged accident . . . there were no ongoing DORMITORY AUTHORITY projects.” However, in view of the evidence that the condition may have existed for a year prior to the accident, that showing was insufficient to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law *(see Johnston v City of New*York, 18 AD3d 712 [2005]).

We note that the plaintiffs submitted evidence of a triable issue of fact as to whether allegedly defective roof repairs undertaken by the Dormitory Authority contributed to the accident, in opposition to the Dormitory Authority’s motion. In August 2000 CUNY complained to the Dormitory Authority about roof leaks in the gymnasium which the Dormitory Authority undertook to repair. In January 2001, when the work was purportedly completed, CUNY complained to the Dormitory Authority that two roof leaks were still active in “M 233” and “the south section of Skylight corridor.” There is no evidence in the record that these active leaks could not have affected the gymnasium, nor is there evidence that the gymnasium roof was inspected after the Dormitory Authority purportedly completed the repairs.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the Dormitory Authority’s motion. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          15,871
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             100
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    101,721
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        374,719
<ALLOWANCE>                                      5,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 501,449
<DEPOSITS>                                     438,377
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,763
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,930
<LONG-TERM>                                      8,998
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,677
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,704
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 501,449
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 32,353
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,515
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   514
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                38,382
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              19,943
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 962
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           17,477
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,068
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   5
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,991
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,795
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       7,795
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,483
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     4.22
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   10.56
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,489
<LOANS-PAST>                                     9,736
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  5,388
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,500
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,711
<RECOVERIES>                                       643
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                5,500
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             5,500
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
§ 2900.1 General. Section 401(c) of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA) requires the Secretary of Agriculture to determine the essential uses of natural gas, and to certify to the Secretary of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the natural gas requirements, expressed either as volumes or percentages of use, of persons, or classes thereof, for essential agricultural uses in order to meet requirements of full food and fiber production. This rule covers establishments performing functions classed as essential agricultural uses whose natural gas supplies are distributed through the interstate pipeline systems even though such establishments may receive such gas directly from an intrastate pipeline or local distribution company. The rule provides to the Secretary of Energy (for purposes of Section 401(a) of the NGPA) and to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the following certifications: ( a ) Essential agricultural *uses* of natural gas, expressed as classes of establishments that use gas for essential agricultural purposes; and
( b ) Essential agricultural current *requirements* of natural gas, expressed as percentages of use.
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 MagnaChip Semiconductor LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 2, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Robert J. Krakauer, Executive Vice President, Strategic Operations, and 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 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                                                                           
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                           
|/s/ Robert J. Krakauer                                                     
|Robert J. Krakauer                                                         
|Executive Vice President, Strategic Operations, and Chief Financial Officer
|November 14, 2005                                                          



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.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 21, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00405

- CV

David GILLESPIE

, Appel lant

v.

A.L.

A.L. HERNDEN and Frederick R. Zlotoucha,

Appellee

From the 408th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 10278

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding



### CORRECTED ORDER

The Appellant ’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief has this date been received

and filed in the above styled and numbered cause. Extension of time to file the Appellant’s brief

is this date GRANTE D. Time is extended to December 4, 2015.



### PER CUR IAM

ATTESTED TO:

____________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

CLERK OF COURT

cc: Kimberly S. Keller

No. 120

Boerne, TX 78006

- 2805

Andrew E. Toscano

Gene Toscano Inc

846 Culebra Rd Ste 104

San Antonio, TX 78201

- 6244 Richard A. Sparr Jr.

Sparr & Ge erdes

1313 NE Loop 410 Ste 100

San Antonio, TX 78209

- 1529

Frederick R. Zlotucha

Law Office of Frederick R. Zlotucha

222 E Main Plz

San Antonio, TX 78205

- 2717
#### § 29.3067 Tannish-buff (FL).

A light red-yellow shaded toward buff.

[51 FR 40407, Nov. 7, 1986]
#### GERBRACHT, Appellant, v. BUTLER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

June 1, 1906.)

Action by Frederick Gerbracht against Edward H. Butler.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
§ 27.38 Terms defined for purposes of classification. For the purposes of classification the following terms shall be construed, respectively, to mean: ( a ) *Cotton of perished staple.* Cotton that has the strength of fiber as ordinarily found in cotton destroyed or unduly reduced through exposure to the weather either before picking or after baling, or through heating by fire, or on account of water packing, or by other causes.
( b ) [Reserved]
( c ) *Gin cut cotton.* Cotton that shows damage in ginning, through cutting by the saws, to an extent that reduces its value more than two grades.
( d ) *Reginned cotton.* Cotton that has passed through the ginning process more than once, and cotton that, after having been ginned, has been subjected to a cleaning process and then baled.
( e ) *Repacked cotton.* Cotton that is composed of factors', brokers', or other samples, or of loose or miscellaneous lots collected and rebaled, or cotton in a bale which is composed of cotton from two or more smaller bales or parts of bales that are combined after the cotton leaves the gin.
( f ) *False packed cotton.* Cotton in a bale ( 1 ) containing substances entirely foreign to cotton,
( 2 ) containing damaged cotton in the interior with or without any indication of such damage upon the exterior,
( 3 ) composed of good cotton upon the exterior and decidedly inferior cotton in the interior, in such manner as not to be detected by customary examination, or
( 4 ) containing pickings or linters worked into the bale.
( g ) *Mixed packed cotton.* Cotton in a bale which, in the sample taken therefrom, shows ( 1 ) a difference of three or more grades, or
( 2 ) a difference of three or more color groups, or
( 3 ) a difference in length of staple of one-eighth inch or more. For purposes of this paragraph, White Cotton (including the Plus grades), Light Gray Cotton, and Gray Cotton shall constitute one color group, and Light Spotted Cotton, Spotted Cotton, Tinged Cotton, and Yellow Stained Cotton shall each constitute a color group.
( h ) *Water packed cotton.* Cotton in a bale that has been penetrated by water during the baling process, causing damage to the fiber, or a bale that through exposure to the weather or by other means, while apparently dry on the exterior, has been damaged by water in the interior.
[22 FR 10926, Dec. 28, 1957, as amended at 26 FR 5945, July 1, 1961; 32 FR 7011, May 9, 1967; 35 FR 17935, Nov. 21, 1970]
§ 331.8 Denial, revocation, or suspension of registration. ( a ) An application may be denied or a certificate of registration revoked or suspended if: ( 1 ) The individual or entity, the responsible official, or an individual who owns or controls the entity is within any of the categories described in 18 U.S.C. 175b;
( 2 ) The individual or entity, the responsible official, or an individual who owns or controls the entity is reasonably suspected by any Federal law enforcement or intelligence agency of: ( i ) Committing a crime set forth in 18 U.S.C. 2332b(g)(5); or
( ii ) Knowing involvement with an organization that engages in domestic or international terrorism (as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2331) or with any other organization that engages in intentional crimes of violence; or
( iii ) Being an agent of a foreign power as defined in 50 U.S.C. 1801;
( 3 ) The individual or entity does not meet the requirements of this part;[3] or
( 4 ) It is determined that such action is necessary to protect plant health or plant products.
( b ) Upon revocation or suspension of a certificate of registration, the individual or entity must: ( 1 ) Immediately stop all use of each select agent or toxin covered by the revocation or suspension order;
( 2 ) Immediately safeguard and secure each select agent or toxin covered by the revocation or suspension order from theft, loss, or release; and
( 3 ) Comply with all disposition instructions issued by the Administrator for each select agent or toxin covered by the revocation or suspension.
( c ) Denial of an application for registration and revocation or suspension of registration may be appealed under § 331.20. However, any denial of an application for registration or revocation or suspension of a certificate of registration will remain in effect until a final agency decision has been rendered.
Footnotes -
331.8
[3] If registration is denied for this reason, we may provide technical assistance and guidance.
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

RICK BROWN,

Petitioner,

v. CASE NO. 3:20cv2693-MCR-EMT

WARDEN JOSEPH,

Respondent.

__________________________/

O R D E R

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on June 30, 

2020. ECF No. 13. The parties were furnished a copy of the Report and 

Recommendation and afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, 

United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of all 

timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any timely filed 

objections thereto, I have determined the Report and Recommendation should be 

adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 

13, is adopted and incorporated by reference in this Order.

Case 3:20-cv-02693-MCR-EMT Document 14 Filed 07/31/20 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No. 3:20cv2693-MCR-EMT

2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241, ECF No. 4, is DENIED.

3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close 

the case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of July 2020.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-02693-MCR-EMT Document 14 Filed 07/31/20 Page 2 of 2
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                            Washington, D.C. 20549
                                    FORM 15

Certification  and Notice of Termination of Registration  under Section 12(g) of
   the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 or Suspension of Duty to File Reports
      Under Sections 13 and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                         Commission File Number  1-640
                              NL Industries, Inc.
           -------------------------------------------------------
            (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


             16825 Northchase Drive, Suite 1200, Houston, TX 77060
             -----------------------------------------------------
      (Address, including  zip code,  and telephone  number,  including
           area code, of registrant's principal executive offices)

                    Senior Secured Discount Notes Due 2005
                  ------------------------------------------

           (Title of each class of securities covered by this Form)

                              Common Stock, $.125
                  ------------------------------------------
           (Titles of all other  classes of  securities  for which a
               duty to file reports under section 13(a) or 15(d)
                               remains)

     Please  place  an X in  the  box(es)  to  designate  the  appropriate  rule
provision(s) relied upon to terminate or suspend the duty to file reports:

            Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(i)  [X]        Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(ii)  [ ]
            Rule 12g-4(a)(1)(ii) [ ]        Rule 12h-3(b)(2)(i)   [ ]
            Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(i)  [ ]        Rule  12h-3(b)(1)(ii) [ ]
            Rule 12g-4(a)(2)(ii) [ ]        Rule 15d-6            [ ]
            Rule 12h-3(b)(1)(i)  [ ]

     Approximate  number of holders of record as of the  certification or notice
date: 5

     Pursuant to the  requirements  of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 NL
Industries, Inc. has caused this certification/notice to be signed on its behalf
by the undersigned duly authorized person.

                                       NL INDUSTRIES, INC.


DATE:  August 20, 1997           BY:          /s/ David B. Garten
                                       -----------------------------------
                                       David B. Garten, Vice President and
                                       General Counsel
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned officer of MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:

(i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



|                   |  |  |  |                                                                                    
|------------------ |  |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: May 3, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Margaret Sakai                                                                 
|                   |  |  |  | Margaret Sakai Chief
Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended or incorporated by reference in any registration statement of the Company filed under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

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.