alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO: 01

- 14

- 00156

- CR

JAVIER GALINDO PACHECO § IN THE FIRST
V. § COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF TEXAS § HOUSTON, TEXAS
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT AND ORDER GRANTING SAME Maite Sample, the Court appointed appellate counsel for Appellant, Javier Galindo Pacheco, respectfully moves to withdraw as counsel in this

case. The reason for this request is that following a careful review of the complete court record and transcripts in this case, including the presentence report; after corresponding with Appellant, and after researching the law as
it relates to the facts of this case, counsel has concluded that any further proceedings on behalf of Appellant would be wholly frivolous and without arguable merit within of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and its
progeny. A copy of a letter sent to Appellant informing him o f the filing of the Anders brief along with this motion to withdraw is attached to this
motion.
/s/ Maite Sample Maite Sample SBOT # 24052072 ACCEPTED 01-14-00156-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 2/16/2015 2:31:31 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A true copy of this motion has been delivered via email to the appellate division of the Harris County District Attorney's office on February 9, 2015

.

/s/ Maite Sample Maite SampleNO: 01

- 14

- 00156

- CR

JAVIER GALINDO PACHECO § IN THE FIRST
V. § COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF TEXAS § HOUSTON, TEXAS
ORDER Counsel for the appellant moves for permission to withdraw as attorney of record for the appellant and to be relieved of any future professional obligation, responsibilit y, or duty to the appellant. After considering the same, the Court finds the motion should be granted. Therefore, it is ORDERED that Maite Sample is hereby relieved of any future professional obligation, responsibility or duty to the appellant
other th an providing access to any and all materials which are necessary to represent appellant in this case and which are within her possession to
retained counsel.
SIGNED AND ENTERED this

______ day of _____________, 2015

.

_________________________________________ Justice Presiding
Editorial Note on Part 782
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 782 appear at 61 FR 32643, June 25, 1996.

§ 782.16 Designating end use on form FSA-751. ( a ) If the end use specified on the applicable form FSA-751, Wheat Consumption and Resale Report, is “export,” the exporter must specify the final destination, by country, on form FSA-751.
( b ) If the end user utilizes the wheat for purposes other than milling, brewing, malting, distilling, export, or manufacturing, such use must be specifically designated on form FSA-751.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

**____________** No. 22 - 50804 Summary Calendar

**____________ United States of America,**  Plaintiff
— Appellee **,** versus **Jose Luis Jaimes -**  **Reynoso,** Defendant
— Appellant **.**

**______________________________** Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:19 - CR - 2771 - 1

**___________ ___________________**  Before **Smith, Southwick,** and **Douglas,** Circuit Judges **. Per Curiam**  **:** ***** The attorney appointed to represent Jose Luis Jaimes - Reynoso has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Jaimes - Reynoso has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief an d the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We

**_____________________** * This opinion is not designated for publication. See **5th Cir .**  **R .**  47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 28, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-50804 Document: 00516731429 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2023No. 22 - 50804

2 concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is **GRANTED** , counsel is excused from furt her responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED** . See **5th Cir. R.** 42.2 . Case: 22-50804 Document: 00516731429 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2023
§ 906.19 Term of office. ( a ) The term of office of committee members and their respective alternates shall be for three years beginning August 1 and ending July 31: *Provided,* That the term of office of one-third of the initial producer members and alternates and one-third of the initial handler members and alternates shall end July 31, 1961, and the term of office of an identical number of such committee members and alternates shall end July 31, 1962. No member or alternate member shall succeed himself.
( b ) Members and alternates shall serve in that capacity during the portion of the term of office for which they are selected and have qualified, and until their respective successors are selected and have qualified. Should a producer member or alternate member change his marketing affiliation during his term of office, he may continue to serve in such capacity during the remainder of such term.
[25 FR 9093, Sept. 22, 1960. Redesignated at 26 FR 12751, Dec. 30, 1961, as amended at 31 FR 10462, Aug. 4, 1966]
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3139 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on 4,4N-Oxydiphthalic 

anhydride. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 25, 2006 

Mr. CHAMBLISS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on 4,4NOxydiphthalic anhydride. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. 4,4N-OXYDIPHTHALIC ANHYDRIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.05.13 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 4,4N-Oxydiphthalic anhydride) is amended by striking 

7 ‘‘12/31/2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2009’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•S 3139 IS 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 1-2 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 1 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 1-2 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 2 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 1-2 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 3 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 1-2 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 4 of 5
Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 1-2 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 5 of 5
# L_2015023DE.01001902.xml

| 29.1.2015 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 23/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2015

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 23/19

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 910/2014 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 23. Juli 2014 über elektronische Identifizierung und Vertrauensdienste für elektronische Transaktionen im Binnenmarkt und zur Aufhebung der Richtlinie 1999/93/EG

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 257 vom 28. August 2014
  )

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 257 vom 28. August 2014

Auf Seite 104, Kapitel III Abschnitt 5 Artikel 37 Absatz 4:

anstatt:

„(4)   Die Kommission kann im Wege von Durchführungsrechtsakten Kennnummern für Normen für qualifizierte Zertifikate für fortgeschrittene elektronische Siegel festlegen. Bei fortgeschrittenen elektronischen Siegeln wird davon ausgegangen, dass sie die Anforderungen gemäß den Absätzen 1 und 2 und Artikel 36 erfüllen, wenn sie diesen Normen entsprechen. Diese Durchführungsrechtsakte werden nach dem in Artikel 48 Absatz 2 genannten Prüfverfahren erlassen. Die Kommission veröffentlicht diese Rechtsakte im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union.“

muss es heißen:

„(4)   Die Kommission kann im Wege von Durchführungsrechtsakten Kennnummern für Normen für qualifizierte Zertifikate für fortgeschrittene elektronische Siegel festlegen. Bei fortgeschrittenen elektronischen Siegeln wird davon ausgegangen, dass sie die Anforderungen gemäß den Absätzen 1 und 2 und Artikel 36 erfüllen, wenn sie diesen Normen entsprechen. Diese Durchführungsrechtsakte werden nach dem in Artikel 48 Absatz 2 genannten Prüfverfahren erlassen.“

---
#### Miriam S. Trosky, Appellant, v Yvonne T. Sider et al., Respondents.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. (See *Erneta v Princeton Hosp.,*49 NY2d 829.) (Appeal from order of Niagara Supreme Court—attachment.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Simons, Schnepp, Callahan and Witmer, JJ.
5236.601 Policy.

(1) NAVFACENGCOM is responsible for any required Congressional notification.

Parent topic: Subpart 5236.6 - ARCHITECT-ENGINEER SERVICES
EX-34 (b)
(logo) PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
300 Madison Avenue
New York NY 10017
Telephone (646) 471-3000
www.pwc.com


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors of Residential Capital, LLC:

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Assertion Concerning Compliance with Regulation AB Item 1122
Servicing Criteria, that GMAC Mortgage, LLC (the "Company"), a subsidiary
of Residential Capital, LLC, complied with the servicing criteria set forth in
Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the
GMACM Private Platform (the "Platform") as of and for the year then ended
December 31, 2006, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii); 1122(d)(2)(iv);
1122(d)(3)(i),(ii) and 1122(d)(4)(i),(ii), which the Company has determined are
not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the
Platform. Appendix A to management's assertion identifies the individual asset-
backed transactions and securities defined by management as constituting the
Platform.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the
servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's
assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining,
on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered
necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected
asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of
selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether
the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected
activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures
were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by
the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not
designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred
prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or
amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this
report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our
opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria.


In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006, for the GMACM Private Platform is fairly stated, in all
material respects.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

New York, New York
March 6, 2007
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 810.2001 Definition of triticale.

Grain that, before the removal of dockage, consists of 50 percent or more of triticale (*X Triticosecale* Wittmack) and not more than 10 percent of other grains for which standards have been established under the United States Grain Standards Act and that, after the removal of dockage, contains 50 percent or more of whole triticale.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

M EMORANDUM O RDER

Appellate case name: In re Joseph Andre Davis

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00838

- CV

Trial court case number: 1997

- 09681

Trial court: 245th District Court of Harris County

On November 13, 2014, the Court dismissed relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus

for lack of jurisdiction. On the same day, relator filed an addendum to his petition and requested

an emergency stay. Because relator’s petition for writ of habeas cor pus has been dismissed,

r elator’s request for a stay is dismissed as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 18, 2014
###### Editorial Note on Part 91

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 91 appear at 61 FR 51350, Oct. 2 1996.

#### § 91.14 When an application may be withdrawn.

An application for a laboratory service may be withdrawn by the applicant at any time before the analytical testing is performed; *Provided,* That, the applicant shall pay, at the hourly rate prescribed in § 91.37, for the time incurred by the scientist or laboratory technician, in connection with such application and any travel expenses, telephone, facsimile, mailing, telegraph or other expenses, which have been incurred by the laboratory servicing office, in connection with such application.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

JAMES PETTY, #124 252, *

Plaintiff, *

v. * Case No. 2:06-CV-639-WKW

RAY B. FINEDOR, et al, *

Defendants. *

RENEWED MOTION TO DISMISS

Comes now the Defendant, Edward O. Hardy, by and through his counsel, and 

renews his previously filed Motion to Dismiss and states as follows:

1. On December 12, 2006, an Order was filed by United States Magistrate

Judge Delores R. Boyd ordering the Plaintiff to file a response to written

reports on or before January 3, 2007. The Order further stated: “Plaintiff is

specifically cautioned that if he fails to file a response in compliance with

the directives of this order the undersigned will recommend that this case

be dismissed for such failure.” 

2. On January 4, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Extension. 

3. On January 4, 2007, Defendant Edward O. Hardy filed a Motion to

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claims and Objection to Plaintiff’s Motion for an

Extension as the Plaintiff had failed to comply with the Court’s directive.

4. On January 5, 2007, Chief United States Magistrate Judge Charles S.

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 28 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 1 of 3
Coody granted the Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time. The Plaintiff

was granted an extension from January 3, 2007 to January 23, 2007.

5. As of this filing, the Plaintiff has failed again to adhere to the Court’s Order

directing his response to be filed on or before January 23, 2007.

The Court’s Order of January 5, 2007 was clear in that the deadline for filing was

to be on or before January 23, 2007; otherwise, the case would be treated as

dismissed. 

Therefore, Defendant Edward O. Hardy requests that this Honorable Court

dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims as he has failed to comply with the Court directive, namely

in timely filings.

 Respectfully submitted this 25th day of January, 2007. 

 s/ Clifton F. Hastings 

Clifton F. Hastings (HAS014)

Attorney for Defendant Edward O. Hardy

CERVERA, RALPH & REEVES, LLC

914 South Brundidge Street

P. O. Box 325

Troy, Alabama 36081

(334) 566-0116

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 28 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify a copy of the foregoing Answer has been electronically served

upon the following on the 25th day of January, 2007 by CM/ECF:

Steven Mallette Sirmon 

Alabama Board of Pardons & Paroles 

301 South Ripley St 

PO Box 302405 

Montgomery, AL 36130 

steven.sirmon@paroles.alabama.gov

and I hereby certify a copy of the foregoing Answer has been served upon the

following by US Mail on the 25th day of January, 2007:

James Petty

AIS #139044

Easterling Correctional Facility

200 Wallace Drive

Clio, Alabama 36017-2615

 s/ Clifton F. Hastings 

Clifton F. Hastings

Case 2:06-cv-00639-WKW-TFM Document 28 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 3 of 3
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

FRANK STEVEN DAVIS,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No.: 3:20cv5974/LAC/EMT

JULIE JONES,

Respondent.

_________________________/

ORDER

The chief magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation on January 

29, 2021 (ECF No. 4). Petitioner was 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). No objections have been filed.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, I have determined it 

should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. The chief magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) 

is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. Petitioner’s habeas petition (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of 

jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

Case 3:20-cv-05974-LC-EMT Document 7 Filed 03/04/21 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No.: 3:20cv5974/LAC/EMT

4. Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 6) is DENIED 

as moot.

5. The clerk of court is directed to close this case.

DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of March, 2021.

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cv-05974-LC-EMT Document 7 Filed 03/04/21 Page 2 of 2
28.203 Individual Sureties.

28.203-1 Acceptability of individual sureties.

28.203-2 Substitution of assets.

28.203-3 Release of security interest.

28.203-4 Solicitation provision and contract clause.

28.203-5 Exclusion of individual sureties.

Parent topic: Subpart 28.2 - Sureties and Other Security for Bonds
#### § 82.1 Applicability.

Pursuant to the authority conferred by Section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, as amended (7 U.S.C. 612c) (Section 32), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) will make payment to California growers who divert clingstone peaches by removing trees on which the fruit is produced in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth herein.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, March 27, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, March 27, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17D0314. RACHEL F. SHOENTHAL et al. v. FRAN W. SHOENTHAL et al..
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 14CV8263
#### § 917.65 Duration of immunities.

The benefits, privileges, and immunities conferred by virtue of the provisions of this subpart shall cease upon its termination except with respect to acts done under and during the time the provisions of this part are in force and effect.

###### Effective Date Note

#### Effective Date Note:

At 76 FR 66605, Oct. 27, 2011, § 917.65 was suspended indefinitely, effective Oct. 28, 2011.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-2395

WALTER D. HAYES,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

W. WARE MORRISON, Attorney & Counselor at Law; PROVIDENT 

LIFE & ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY; EDWARD E. ROLLINS, JR.; 

GLADYS HAYES-OWENS; CHARLES EVERETT MALONE, Attorney at Law,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District 

Judge. (2:09-cv-00431-JBF-FBS)

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 26, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter D. Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Walter D. Hayes appeals the district court’s order 

denying reconsideration of the dismissal for lack of 

jurisdiction of Hayes’ civil complaint. We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny 

Hayes’ motion to overturn the district court’s decision and 

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Hayes v. 

Morrison, No. 2:09-cv-00431-JBF-FBS (E.D. Va. Nov. 24, 2009). 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1791

BILLY GRISSO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-98- 1061-AMD) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: September 8, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy Grisso, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Billy Grisso appeals the district court’s order dismissing his mandamus petition which sought to compel the Defendant to render a decision on his application for benefits filed under 42 U.S.C. § 402(x)(1) (1988) (current version at 42 U.S.C.A. § 402(x)(1) (West Supp. 1998)). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Grisso v. Apfel , No. CA-98-1061-AMD (D. Md. Apr. 20, 1998). We also deny Grisso’s motion to remand. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 927.34 Right of the Secretary.

The members and alternates for members and any agent or employee appointed or employed by the Fresh Pear Committee or the Processed Pear Committee shall be subject to removal or suspension by the Secretary at any time. Each and every regulation, decision, determination, or other act shall be subject to the continuing right of the Secretary to disapprove of the same at any time, and, upon such disapproval, shall be deemed null and void, except as to acts done in reliance thereon or in compliance therewith prior to such disapproval by the Secretary.