alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-41134 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANTONYA RENEE COLE, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-00-CR-96-3

-------------------- May 2, 2001 Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Antonya Renee Cole appeals her convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, conspiracy to possess marijuana with intent to distribute, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. She asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction because the testimony of the cooperating codefendant, Angela Doby, was induced through a plea agreement and was not corroborated. The uncorroborated testimony of a coconspirator may be sufficient to support a conviction. United States v. Westbrook , 119 F.3d 1176, 1189 (5th Cir. 1997).No. 00-41134 -2- The offer of a leniency agreement by the Government does not violate the federal bribery statute. See United States v. Haese , 162 F.3d 359, 367-68 (5th Cir. 1998). We hold that the evidence was sufficient to support Cole’s conviction on each ground. Cole has raised various assertions of ineffective assistance of her trial counsel. The record has not been adequately developed for this court to consider these claims on direct appeal. See United States v. Higdon , 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987). Cole also asserts that her trial was rendered fundamentally unfair because a government witness improperly commented on Cole’s post-arrest, post- Miranda silence in violation of Doyle v. Ohio , 426 U.S. 610 (1976). Because no objection was made to the witness’s testimony, review is for plain error. United States v. Calverley , 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc)(citing United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 (1993)). As Cole testified that she had exercised her right to remain silent in order to bolster her own credibility and to refute another officer’s testimony regarding her post-arrest statements, she cannot show that her substantial rights were affected by the case agent’s testimony. Consequently, her conviction is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

GAINESVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v. CASE NO. 1:95-cr-01027-MP

BRYAN EDMOND HUNT,

Defendant.

____________________________/

O R D E R 

This matter is before the Court on Doc. 86, Defendant’s Motion for an Administrative

Order. Previously, Defendant filed a motion (Doc. 84) requesting that the Court order the

retention of any original records of his September 15, 1995, arraignment, at which he pled guilty,

and his January 19, 1996, sentencing hearing. As grounds for his request, Defendant alleged that

the official transcripts of his hearings were fabricated in order to conceal the fact that his guilty

plea was coerced by the prosecutor in concert with the Court. Defendant therefore sought to

preserve the original stenographic notes and audio recording of his hearings. Although

Defendant’s allegations are patently frivolous, the Court searched for and located the original

stenographic notes of Defendant’s hearings and ordered that they be retained for an additional

six months. Doc. 85. Because no audio recording of Defendant’s hearings exists, the Court

denied Defendant’s motion to preserve the original audio recording of his hearings.

In the instant motion, Defendant challenges the Court’s assertion that no audio recording

exists. Defendant also claims that he is in possession of a copy of an audio recording of his

change of plea hearing but that it is “a fraudulently dubbed-in tape that mimicked my defrauded

plea transcript word-for-word.” Doc. 86 at 1. If Defendant is indeed in possession of an audio

Case 1:95-cr-01027-MP Document 87 Filed 06/09/09 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 1:95-cr-01027-MP

recording of his change of plea hearing, then he is in possession of the only remaining copy. As

stated in the previous order on this matter, the law requires that the original records of court

proceedings be preserved in the public records for not less than ten years. 28 U.S.C. § 753(b). 

Even if that statute covers a court reporter’s audio recordings, this case is more than ten years

old; the audio tapes used to record Defendant’s change of plea hearing were long ago reused to

record other hearings in other cases. Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

The motion at Doc. 86 is DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of June, 2009

 s/Maurice M. Paul 

 Maurice M. Paul, Senior District Judge

Case 1:95-cr-01027-MP Document 87 Filed 06/09/09 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 71427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29436]



[[Page 71427]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2020-000]


Domtar Paper Company, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

November 16, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of Domtar Paper Company, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability is December 6, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#10565542535f7e7c797e75436560607f626450767562733e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="367073647579585a5f585365434646594442765053445518515940">[email protected]</span></a>. or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29436 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Subpart 17.3 - [Reserved]

Parent topic: Part 17 - Special Contracting Methods
§ 4279.208 Lender eligibility requirements. ( a ) An eligible Lender is any Federal or State chartered bank, Farm Credit Bank, other Farm Credit System institution with direct lending authority, and Bank for Cooperatives. These entities must be subject to credit examination and supervision by either an agency of the United States or a State. Credit unions subject to credit examination and supervision by either the National Credit Union Administration or a State agency are eligible Lenders. The National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation is also an eligible Lender. Savings and loan associations, mortgage companies, insurance companies, and other lenders not meeting the above criteria are not eligible.
( b ) The Lender must demonstrate that it meets the FDIC definition of Well Capitalized at the time of application and at time of issuance of the Loan Note Guarantee. This information may be identified in FDIC Call Reports and Thrift Financial Reports. If the information is not identified in the Call Reports or Thrift Financial Reports, the Lender will be required to calculate its levels and provide them to the Agency.
( c ) The Lender must not be debarred or suspended by the Federal government.
( d ) If the Lender is under a cease-and-desist order, or similar constraint, from a Federal or State agency, the Lender must inform the Agency. The Agency will evaluate the Lender's eligibility on a case-by-case basis given the risk of loss posed by the cease-and-desist order or similar constraint, as applicable.
( e ) The Agency will only approve loan guarantees for Lenders with adequate experience and expertise, from similar projects, to make, secure, service, and collect loans approved under this subpart.
Opinion issued April 25, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-17-00129-CV

———————————

IN THE INTEREST OF J.L.G., JR., A Child

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2014-06119J

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, J.L.G., through counsel, representing that the trial court has signed 

an order granting a new trial in this parental termination case, has filed a motion to 

dismiss the appeal as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). We grant the motion 

and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

We are authorized by statute to consider an appeal from a “final order” 

rendered under Title 5 of the Family Code. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(b) 
2

(West 2011); see, e.g., Brejon v. Johnson, 314 S.W.3d 26, 33 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.). When the trial court grants a motion for new trial, the case 

is reinstated on the trial court’s docket and will proceed to trial as though no trial 

had been previously conducted. Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care Sys., 160 S.W.3d 

559, 563 (Tex. 2005). The granting of a new trial renders the appeal moot, and this 

Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See Galvan v. Harris Cty., No. 01-09-

00884-CV, 2011 WL 345677, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 31, 2011, 

no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal as moot after trial court signed 

order granting new trial).

Accordingly, because the trial court signed an order granting a new trial, we

reinstate this case following this Court’s March 21, 2017 Order of Abatement, grant 

the appellant’s motion, and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

1 See TEX. R. 

APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We direct the Clerk of this Court to issue the mandate 

immediately with this opinion. See id. 18.1(c); TEX. R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2(a) (West 

2012). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Massengale.

 

1 This Court had abated this case to determine whether appellant, J.L.G., was indigent 

and, if so, to appoint counsel. On April 13, 2017, the district clerk filed a third 

supplemental clerk’s record in this Court containing, among other things, the 

“Agreed Order Granting Partial Motion for New Trial” for appellant, J.L.G., only, 

and appointing counsel for appellant, signed by the trial court on April 3, 2017.
#### § 4274.303 Review or appeal rights.

An intermediary may have appeal or review rights for adverse Agency decisions made under this part. Agency decisions that are adverse to the individual participant are appealable, while matters of general applicability are not subject to appeal; however, such decisions are reviewable for appealability by the National Appeals Division (NAD). All appeals will be conducted by NAD and will be handled in accordance with 7 CFR part 11.
#### MANUEL et al. v. MARTIN.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

November 27, 1912.)

No. 2,320.

In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas; Edward B. Meek, Judge.

E. S. J. Whitehead, of Brown wood, Tex., for plaintiff: in error.

Wm. J. Berne, of Ft. Worth, Tex., for defendant in error.

Before PABDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and FOSTEB, District Judge.

PEB CUBIAM.

The Circuit Court had jurisdiction of this case by reason of diverse citizenship of the parties and as between the original parties to the note sued on. See Annotated Statutes, vol. *4,*page 310, and Parker v. Ormsby, 141 U. S. 81, 11 Sup. Ct. 912, 35 L. Ed. 654. Judgment was correctly given against the plaintiffs in error, because the plaintiff below was the assignee of a purchaser for value and before maturity without notice of any equities existing between the original makers to the note. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
23.902 Policy.       (a) 						            Agencies shall implement environmental management systems (EMS) at all appropriate organizational levels. Where contractor activities affect an agency’s environmental management aspects, EMS requirements shall be included in contracts to ensure proper implementation and execution of EMS roles and responsibilities.                                          (b) 						            The contracting officer shall-                                                         (1) 								                Specify the EMS directives with which the contractor must comply; and                                                            (2) 								                Ensure contractor compliance to the same extent as the agency would be required to comply, if the agency operated the facilities or vehicles.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 23.9 - Contractor Compliance with Environmental Management Systems
#### Murray I. Dann, Appellant, v Larry K. Bernstein et al., Respondents.

— Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered May 8, 1979 in Broome County, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213 and directed the parties to serve formal pleadings. Ón December 20, 1977, defendants Larry K. Bernstein and Richard J. Kufta executed a promissory note in which they agreed to pay plaintiff $137,500, payable in monthly installments of $1,145.83. The note was executed pursuant to an agreement of the parties in which defendants agreed to purchase plaintiffs law practice. Defendants defaulted on the December, 1978 payment; and plaintiff claimed' that the balance of the note, $124,895.87, was thereby due, along with attorney’s fees of $41,631.95. Thereafter, plaintiff served defendants with a summons and notice of motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3213. Special Term concluded that the procedure of CPLR 3213 was not available, and additionally, that questions of fact existed which precluded summary judgment. There should be an affirmance. CPLR 3213 provides that a plaintiff may serve with the summons a notice of motion for summary judgment and the supporting papers in lieu of a complaint when the action is based upon "an instrument for the payment of money only”. To qualify as such an instrument, plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by proof of the note and a failure to make the payments called for by its terms *(Seaman-Andwall Corp. v Wright Mach.Corp.,*31 AD2d 136, 137, affd 29 NY2d 617). Since the note here provides neither for an acceleration of its balance upon a default of a monthly installment nor for attorney’s fees, plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case which would entitle him to use the procedure set forth in CPLR 3213. Furthermore, we reject plaintiffs position that the security agreement executed by defendants should be read together with the note to establish that the instrument is for the payment of money only. The action would then not be based upon an instrument for the payment of money *only;*it would call for something in addition to the payment of money (see *Wagner v Cornblum,*36 AD2d 427, 429; *Nasti Sand Co. v Almar Landscaping Corp.,*34 AD2d 554; *Signal Plan v Chase Manhattan Bank,*23 AD2d 636; *New York*
      *783
      *Conference Assn, of 7th Day Adventists of Syracuse, N. Y. v 915 James St. Assoc.,*63 Mise 2d 38; see, also, *Interman Ind. Prods, v R. S. M. Electron Power,*37 NY2d 151, 155; Siegel, New York Practice, § 289, p 343). Accordingly, Special Term properly concluded that the procedure provided in CPLR 3213 is here unavailable. In view of our holding, we need not reach the other points raised in the parties’ briefs. Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

IN RE: PETIA DIMITROVA KNOWLES Case No. 4:95mc40302

_________________________________/

ORDER OF SUSPENSION

This court has received notice by Order of the Supreme Court of Florida dated

January 17, 2012, in The Florida Bar v. Petia Dimitrova Knowles, Case No. SC10-1019,

that Petia Dimitrova Knowles has been suspended from the practice of law.

Pursuant to Local Rules 11.1(E)(3), Petia Dimitrova Knowles is hereby

suspended immediately from practicing in the Northern District of Florida until further

order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of February, 2012.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:95-mc-40302-DJ Document 329 Filed 02/17/12 Page 1 of 1
§ 3560.577 Tenant priorities for labor housing. Tenant occupancy in off-farm labor housing is based on eligible farm labor certified through the income certification process required by § 3560.152 and is prioritized in the following order. ( a ) First priority is to be given to eligible active farm laborer households with first priority going to very low-income households, next priority to low-income households, and last to moderate-income households.
( b ) Second priority is given to retired domestic farm laborer households and disabled domestic farm laborer households who were active in the local farm labor market area at the time of retiring or becoming disabled. Occupancy priority will be given in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
( c ) Third priority is to be given to retired domestic farm laborer households and disabled domestic farm laborer households who were not active in the local farm labor market at the time of retiring or becoming disabled. Occupancy priority will be given in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
#### § 29.3124 Rule 21.

Tobacco damaged under 20 percent but which otherwise meets the specifications of a grade shall be treated as a subgrade by placing the special factor “U” after the grademark. Tobacco damaged 20 percent or more shall be designated as “No-G.”
23.302 Policy.       (a) 						            The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for issuing and administering regulations that require Government activities to apprise their employees of-                                                         (1) 								                All hazards to which they may be exposed;                                                            (2) 								                Relative symptoms and appropriate emergency treatment; and                                                            (3) 								                Proper conditions and precautions for safe use and exposure.                                                                             (b) 						            To accomplish this objective, it is necessary to obtain certain information relative to the hazards which may be introduced into the workplace by the supplies being acquired. Accordingly, offerors and contractors are required to submit hazardous materials data whenever the supplies being acquired are identified as hazardous materials. The latest version of Federal Standard No.313 (Material Safety Data Sheet, Preparation and Submission of) includes criteria for identification of hazardous materials.                                          (c) 						            Hazardous material data (Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS)) are required-                                                         (1) 								                As specified in the latest version of Federal Standard No.313 (including revisions adopted during the term of the contract);                                                            (2) 								                For any other material designated by a Government technical representative as potentially hazardous and requiring safety controls.                                                                             (d) 						            MSDS’s must be submitted-                                                         (1) 								                By the apparent successful offeror prior to contract award if hazardous materials are expected to be used during contract performance.                                                            (2) 								                For agencies other than the Department of Defense, again by the contractor with the supplies at the time of delivery.                                                                             (e) 						            The contracting officer shall provide a copy of all MSDS’s received to the safety officer or other designated individual.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 23.3 - Hazardous Material Identification and Material Safety Data
Sept

Fede

Regu

Orvil

800 

Was

Filed

Subj

Auto

Perfo

Refe

Gran

Integ

secti

Pola

1057

exem

Sinc

Chris

Seni

Pola

cc P

tember 21, 2

eral Aviation

ulatory Dock

lle Wright Bu

Independen

shington, DC

d to the Fede

ject: Time-lim

omatic Depe

ormance Re

erence: Gran

nt of Exempt

grity Catego

ion 91.227(c

ar Air Cargo 

77, hereby n

mption cited 

cerely, 

s Agnini 

ior Director o

ar Air Cargo 

OI Allen Tay

2016 

n Administrat

kets 

uilding (FOB

nce Avenue, 

C 20591 

eral Registe

mited Exemp

ndent Surve

equirements 

nt of Exempt

tion No. 125

ry (NIC) and

c)(1)(i) and (

Worldwide I

notifies the F

above. 

of Operation

ylor EA15/AF

tion 

B-10A) 

SW 

r- Electronic

ption from 14

eillance Broa

tion Number

555 provides

d Navigation 

iii) from Jan

nc. whose p

FAA that we 

ns 

FS-1 

D

cally 

4 CFR 91.22

adcast (ADS

r 12555, reg

 for a time-li

Accuracy C

uary 1, 2020

primary busin

intend to co

DIRECT

27 (c)(1)(i) a

-B) Out Equ

ulatory dock

mited grant 

Category for 

0 through De

ness location

mply with th

TOR OF O

and (iii) – 

uipment 

ket No. FAAof exemptio

position (NA

ecember 31

n is 2000 W

e conditions

OPERAT

-2015-0971 

on from the A

ACp) require

, 2024. 

Westchester A

s and limitati

TIONS

ADS-B Navig

ements of 14

Avenue Purc

ions express

gation 

4 CFR 

chase, NY 

sed in the