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

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-62,574-03

EX PARTE JOHNNY GREEN JR., Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1199474-A IN THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM TARRANT 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 murder and

sentenced to imprisonment for life. The Eighth Court of Appeals reformed the judgment but

affirmed his conviction. Green v. State, No. 08-11-00317-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 22,

2013) (not designated for publication). 

In a single ground, Applicant contends that he was denied his right to file a petition for

discretionary review (PDR). The trial court entered findings of fact and conclusions of law and
2

recommended that we grant Applicant an out-of-time PDR. 

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

of the judgment of the Eighth Court of Appeals in cause number 08-11-00317-CR that affirmed his

conviction in cause number 1199474D from the 372nd District Court of Tarrant County. Applicant

shall file his PDR with this Court within 30 days of the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: January 28, 2015

Do not publish
52.207-5 Option to Purchase Equipment.

As prescribed in 7.404 , insert a clause substantially the same as the following:

Option to Purchase Equipment (Feb 1995)

(a) The Government may purchase the equipment provided on a lease or rental basis under this

contract. The Contracting Officer may exercise this option only by providing a unilateral

modification to the Contractor. The effective date of the purchase will be specified in the unilateral

modification and may be any time during the period of the contract, including any extensions

thereto.

(b) Except for final payment and transfer of title to the Government, the lease or rental portion of

the contract becomes complete and lease or rental charges shall be discontinued on the day

immediately preceding the effective date of purchase specified in the unilateral modification

required in paragraph (a) of this clause.

(c) The purchase conversion cost of the equipment shall be computed as of the effective date

specified in the unilateral modification required in paragraph (a) of this clause, on the basis of the

purchase price set forth in the contract, minus the total purchase option credits accumulated during

the period of lease or rental, calculated by the formula contained elsewhere in this contract.

(d) The accumulated purchase option credits available to determine the purchase conversion cost

will also include any credits accrued during a period of lease or rental of the equipment under any

previous Government contract if the equipment has been on continuous lease or rental. The

movement of equipment from one site to another site shall be "continuous rental."

(End of clause)

Parent topic: 52.207 [Reserved]
§ 52.807 Freedom from pits. ( a ) *General.* The factor of freedom from pits refers to the incidence of pits and pit fragments.
( b ) *Definitions.* ( 1 ) A “pit” for the purpose of the allowances in this subpart is a whole pit or portions of pits computed as follows: ( i ) A single piece of pit shell, whether or not within or attached to a whole cherry, that is larger than one-half pit shell is considered as one pit;
( ii ) A single piece of pit shell, whether or not within or attached to a whole cherry, that is not larger than one-half pit shell is considered as one-half pit;
( iii ) Pieces of pit shell, within or attached to a whole cherry, when their combined size is larger than one-half pit shell are considered as one pit; and
( iv ) Pieces of pit shell, within or attached to a whole cherry, when their combined size is not larger than one-half pit shell are considered as one-half pit.
( 2 ) *Drained cherries* means pitted cherries that are substantially free from any adhering sirup, sugar, or other packing medium.
( c ) *(A) classification.* Frozen red tart pitted cherries that are practically free from pits may be given a score of 18 to 20 points. “Practically free from pits” means that the number of pits that may be present does not exceed the allowances for this classification specified in Table I.
( d ) *(B) classification.* Frozen red tart pitted cherries that are reasonably free from pits may be given a score of 16 or 17 points. Frozen red tart pitted cherries that fall into this classification shall not be graded above U.S. Grade B, regardless of the total score for the product (this is a limiting rule). “Reasonably free from pits” means that the number of pits that may be present does not exceed the number specified in Table I.
( e ) *(C) classification.* Frozen red tart pitted cherries that are fairly free from pits may be given a score of 14 or 15 points. Frozen red tart pitted cherries that fall into this classification shall not be graded above U.S. Grade C, regardless of the total score for the product (this is a limiting rule). “Fairly free from pits” means that the number of pits that may be present does not exceed the number specified in Table I.
( f ) *(SStd.) classification.* Frozen red tart pitted cherries that fail to meet the requirements for U.S. Grade C may be given a score of 0 to 13 points and shall not be graded above Substandard, regardless of the total score for the product (this is a limiting rule).
1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PENSACOLA DIVISION 

IN RE SKANSKA USA CIVIL § 

SOUTHEAST INC. AND § ADMIRALTY RULE 9(H) 

SKANSKA USA, INC. AS § 

OWNERS OF THE BARGE KS § CIVIL ACTION NO. 

5331, PRAYING FOR § 3:20-CV-05980 – RV/MJF 

EXONERATION § 

FROM OR LIMITATION § 

OF LIABILITY § 

 § 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

 COMES NOW, Elizabeth C. Billhimer of Clark Partington, and hereby files 

this Notice of Appearance as counsel for Plaintiffs Skanska USA Civil Southeast 

Inc. and Skanska USA, Inc. 

/s/ Elizabeth C. Billhimer 

ELIZABETH C. BILLHIMER 

Florida Bar No. 0028519 

SCOTT A. REMINGTON 

Florida Bar No. 122483 

JEREMY C. BRANNING 

Florida Bar No. 507016 

CLARK PARTINGTON

P.O. Box 13010 

Pensacola, FL 32591-3010 

Telephone: (850) 434-9200 

Facsimile: (850) 432-7340 

and 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1170 Filed 05/26/21 Page 1 of 3
2 

DEREK A. WALKER 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

KENNETH H. TRIBUCH 

Florida Bar No. 986887 

 Harold. K. Watson, Esq. 

Derek A. Walker, Esq. 

Charles P. Blanchard, Esq. 

Jon W. Wise, Esq. 

CHAFFE MCCALL, LLP 

801 Travis, Suite 1910 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Telephone: (713) 546-9800 

Facsimile: (713) 546-9806 

Attorneys for Skanska USA Civil Southeast 

Inc. and Skanska USA, Inc. 

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1170 Filed 05/26/21 Page 2 of 3
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the 

following through the Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system on this 26th day of 

May, 2021: 

Brian Barr, Esq. 

Christopher Paulos, Esq. 

Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, 

Rafferty & Proctor, P.A. 

316 South Baylen Street 

Pensacola, FL 32502 

Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. 

Justin G. Witkin, Esq. 

Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. 

Neil D. Overholtz, Esq. 

Nathan C. Bess, Esq. 

Bobby J. Bradford, Esq. 

Stephen H. Echsner, Esq. 

E. Samuel Geisler, Esq. 

Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, PLLC 

17 East Main Street, Second Floor 

Pensacola, FL 32502 

Service E-Mail: sgeisler@awkolaw.com 

 nbess@awkolaw.com 

 sallyteam@awkolaw.com 

Thomas F. Gonzalez, Esq. 

J. Nixon Daniel, III, Esq. Beggs & Lane, RLLP 

501 Commendencia Street 

Pensacola, Florida 32502 

Service Email: jnd@beggslane.com 

 tfg@beggslane.com 

Attorneys for Claimants 

/s/ Elizabeth C. Billhimer

ELIZABETH C. BILLHIMER

Case 3:20-cv-05980-LC-HTC Document 1170 Filed 05/26/21 Page 3 of 3
#### Marcia Kalish, Appellant, v. August Von Hagen, Defendant, and Joseph O’Brien, Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated February 14, 1966, reversed and motion for summary judgment denied, with $10 costs and disbursements. In this automobile collision case, a jury question is presented with respect to the length of time which ensued between stoppage of the taxicab and impact with the following automobile, which is *546the vital element in ascertaining negligence. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.
§ 631.11 Conservation practice maintenance. ( a ) Each participant is obligated to maintain the resource management systems or conservation practices applied under the contract for the duration of the contract. Practices installed before execution of the contract are to be maintained as specified in the contract.
( b ) If the life span of the practices or resource management systems extends beyond the period of the contract, state conservationists may make the operation and maintenance of those practices or systems a condition of the contract. The length of such operation and maintenance shall extend for the expected life span.
Exhibit 31

                                CERTIFICATION

      I, Patrick A. Custer, certify that:

      1.  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of VPGI Corp.;

      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;

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

      4.  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
 controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
 15d- 15(e) for the registrant and have:

           a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
      such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
      supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
      registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
      us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
      which this report is being prepared;

           b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
      controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
      about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as
      of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
      evaluation; and

           c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
      internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
      registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal
      quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected,
      or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
      control over financial reporting; and

      5.  I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal
 control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
 committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
 equivalent functions):

           a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
      design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which
      are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
      record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

           b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
      or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
      internal control over financial reporting.

 November 14, 2003

                               /s/ PATRICK A. CUSTER
                               -------------------------
                               Patrick A. Custer
                               Chief Executive Officer
                               and Principal Financial Officer
§ 54.1003 Designation of official certificates, memoranda, marks, and other identifications, for purposes of the Agricultural Marketing Act. Subsection 203(h) of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended provides criminal penalties for various specified offenses relating to official certificates, memoranda, and marks or other identifications, issued or authorized under section 203 of said Act, and certain misrepresentations concerning the inspection or grading of agricultural products under said section. For the purposes of said subsection and the provisions in this subpart, the terms listed in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section shall have the respective meanings specified: ( a ) “Official certificate” means any form of certification, either written or printed, used under the regulations to certify with respect to the evaluation, review, condition, or acceptance of equipment or utensils (including the compliance of equipment or utensils with applicable standards).
( b ) “Official memorandum” means any initial record of findings made by an authorized employee of the Dairy Grading Branch in the process of determining compliance, evaluating, or reviewing equipment or utensils pursuant to the regulations, any processing or in plant-operation report made by an authorized Dairy Grading Branch employee in connection with determining compliance, evaluating, or reviewing equipment or utensils under the regulations, and any report made by an authorized employee of the Dairy Grading Branch of any other services performed pursuant to the regulations.
( c ) “Official mark” or “other official identification” means any form of mark or other identification, including those prescribed in § 54.1018; used under the regulations in marking any equipment or utensils or displayed as an indication that the equipment or utensils has been evaluated by AMS (including the compliance of the equipment or utensils with applicable standards).
#### § 51.889 Well developed grapes.

*Well developed grapes* means grapes which are not abnormally small for the variety.

[36 FR 9126, May 20, 1971. Redesignated at 42 FR 32514, June 27, 1977, and further redesignated at 46 FR 63203, Dec. 31, 1981. Redesignated at 56 FR 15802, Apr. 18, 1991]
§ 58.736 Pasteurized process cheese. Shall conform to the provisions of the Definitions and Standards of Identity for Pasteurized Process Cheese and Related Products, Food and Drug Administration. The average age of the cheese in the blend shall be such that the desired flavor, body and texture will be achieved in the finished product. The quality of pasteurized process cheese shall be determined on the basis of flavor, body and texture, color, and finish and appearance. ( a ) *Flavor.* Has a pleasing and desirable mild cheese taste and odor characteristic of the variety or varieties of cheese ingredients used. If additional optional ingredients are used they shall be incorporated in accordance with good commercial practices and the flavor imparted shall be pleasing and desirable. May have a slight cooked or very slight acid or emulsifier flavor; is free from any undesirable tastes and odors.
( b ) *Body and texture.* Shall have a medium-firm, smooth and velvety body free from uncooked cheese particles. Is resilient and not tough, brittle, short, weak, or sticky. It shall be free from pin holes or openings except those caused by trapped steam. The cheese shall slice freely, and shall not stick to the knife or break when cut into approximately 1 ⁄ 8 inch slices. If in sliced form, the slices shall separate readily.
( c ) *Color.* May be colored or uncolored but shall be uniform throughout. If colored it shall be bright and not be dull or faded. To promote uniformity and a common reference to describe color use the color designations as depicted by the National Cheese Institute standard color guide for cheese.
( d ) *Finish and appearance.* The wrapper may be slightly wrinkled but shall envelop the cheese, adhere closely to the surface, and be completely sealed and not broken or soiled.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10127

No. 95-10128

No. 95-10129

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN GILBERTO GIRALDO,

 Defendant-Appellant.

*******************************************************

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARGARITA ELENA RESTREPO,

 Defendant-Appellant.

*******************************************************

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE ANIBAL VIDAL,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:94-CR-043-R

- - - - - - - - - -
No. 95-10127

No. 95-10128

No. 95-10129

-2-

 

* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

May 21, 1996

Before WIENER, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In these consolidated appeals, Juan Giraldo, Margarita

Restrepo, and Jose Vidal appeal their sentences for conspiracy to

distribute cocaine. Giraldo and Vidal contend that the district

court erred by attributing to them more than 142 kilograms of

cocaine. Giraldo, Vidal, and Restrepo contend that the district

court erred by denying them downward adjustments for their roles

in the offense; erred by upwardly adjusting their offense levels

for possession of a firearm; and erred by denying them downward

departures based on their deportable-alien status. We have

reviewed the records and the briefs of the parties and we find no

reversible error.

First, the attribution of 440 kilograms of cocaine to

Giraldo and the attribution of 646 kilograms of cocaine to Vidal

was not clearly erroneous. See United States v. Maseratti, 1

F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1096, and

cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 1552, and cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 282

(1994). Second, Giraldo's, Restrepo's, and Vidal's sentences

were based on amounts of cocaine closely linked to their

participation in the conspiracy. The district court's denial of
No. 95-10127

No. 95-10128

No. 95-10129

-3-

an adjustment for a mitigating role in the offense was not

clearly erroneous. See United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199

(5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Zuniga, 18 F.3d 1254, 1261 (5th

Cir. 1994). Third, the district court's finding that Giraldo,

Restrepo, and Vidal possessed a gun in connection with their drug

offense was not clearly erroneous. See United States v.

Mitchell, 31 F.3d 271, 278 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct.

455, and cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 649 (1994), and cert. denied,

115 S. Ct. 770, and cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 953 (1995). 

Finally, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appellants'

contention that the district court should have granted them

downward departures based on their alien statuses, United States

v. DiMarco, 46 F.3d 476, 478 (5th Cir. 1995); we therefore

dismiss their downward-departure claim. Id.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 2012 - 0 999 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 2 -NM - 049 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR - M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree w ith because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch Man ager**  **Date**
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





I,
      William Richter, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual
      Report on Form 10-K of Isilon Systems, Inc. for the year ended December 30,
      2007, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual
      Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial
      condition and results of operations of Isilon Systems, Inc.





Dated:
                April 2, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                WILLIAM RICHTERName:
            William
                RichterTitle:
            Interim
                Chief Financial Officer and(Principal
                Accounting and Financial Officer)