alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
March 19,2015 DEMETRIUS WILLIAMS TDCJ-ID #1824940 ALFRED HUGHES UNIT Rt.2 Box 4400 GATESVILLE,TX. 76597

Clerk of Court of Criminal Appeals Mr.Abel Acosta P.O.Box 12308 Austin,Texas 78711

RE:State of Texas V. Cause No.1308742 Demetrius Williams Appellate NO.01-12-01084-CR 

## COURTOF(mmtLNfmB 252015 

# AMAeo6te,ctofc

Dear Clerk/ 

### I amwriting inregards to information concerning the dates I filed for extentions to file a Petition for Discretionary Review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. The First District Court of Appeals Affirmed my conviction in an unpublished 

### opinion onJanuary 7,2014.Williams V. State,No.01-12-01084-CR,2014 WL 60723, at *3,Mandate of affirmance was issued on May 2,2014. I wrote the Court of Criminal Appeals requesting an extension of time to file 

### myPDR 2 times andboth times it wasgranted but I could not do sobecause I wasbenched warranted to a county that I had no access to the law library/ therefore,I failed to file one sir.At this point I've exhausted all of my state remedies in that regard,and I am in need of the following information: l)The dates I requested the extension to file my PDR and 2)The dates I was granted extensions to file my PDR.


### Your cooperation concerning this matter shall be highly appreciated sir.

Thank You,

Demetrius Williams
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 176 

Honoring Dick Brown: New York’s greatest ambassador to Washington. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2005 

Mr. RANGEL submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring Dick Brown: New York’s greatest ambassador to 

Washington. 

Whereas Richard Arthur Brown, known to his friends as 

Dick Brown, was one of the greatest ambassadors the 

city of New York has ever had in Washington, DC; 

Whereas he passed away on February 13, 2004, at the age 

of 85; 

Whereas he was a native New Yorker, raised in Manhattan, 

educated at City College of the City University of New 

York and New York University; 

Whereas among the considerable talents he applied in advancing his passion for politics were the arts of journalism and publicity, including a weekly column which 

appeared in the New York Post; 
2 

•HRES 176 IH 

Whereas his first love was his beloved wife Vivian and his 

family, and after them the great city of New York and 

the world of politics; 

Whereas, after returning home from service in the U.S. Army 

in Panama, he became entrenched in New York City politics where, in 1949, he founded the Lexington Democratic Club and became a leader of the Reform Movement 

in Democratic politics; 

Whereas in that capacity he worked closely with Eleanor Roosevelt, Governor Lehman, and New York Post publisher 

Dorothy Schiff in spreading the message of political reform around the city; 

Whereas I first met Dick Brown when I was serving as an 

Assemblyman in the New York State Legislature and invited him to work with us on the mayoral ticket headed 

by Jim Scheur; 

Whereas Dick later served as Scheur’s chief of staff in Washington when he was elected to Congress; 

Whereas Dick Brown’s move to Washington was one of the 

best things that ever happened to spread the gospel in 

the Nation’s capital about all the good things that were 

available in the great city of New York; 

Whereas Dick Brown mastered the role as New York’s impresario to Washington; as the executive director of the New 

York Festival which I helped to found in the 1970’s, 

Dick Brown showcased New York in ways no one had 

ever seen before; all of its best foods, wines, culture, theater and the arts took center stage on one glorious night 

each year; 

Whereas those days will never be forgotten, when the strains 

of Frank Sinatra’s anthem to our city, ‘‘New York, New 
3 

•HRES 176 IH 

York’’, rang over the Nation’s capital; for that we will 

forever owe Dick Brown our gratitude; and 

Whereas Dick Brown is survived by his wife, Vivian, daughter and son-in-law Jennifer and Leonard Greenberger, his 

grandchildren Brandon and Rachel and his sister Roselyn 

Freeman: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That Dick Brown will forever be remem2 bered as a great American political reformer and as one 

3 of New York’s greatest ambassadors. 

Æ
§ 958.24 Powers. The committee shall have the following powers: ( a ) To administer the provisions of this part in accordance with its terms;
( b ) To make rules and regulations to effectuate the terms and provisions of this part;
( c ) To receive, investigate, and report to the Secretary complaints of violations of the provisions of this part; and
( d ) To recommend to the Secretary amendments to this part.
§ 1016.27 Termination, suspension, or revocation of security facility approval. ( a ) In accordance with § 1016.12, if the need to use, process, store, reproduce, transmit, or handle classified matter no longer exists, the security facility approval will be terminated. The permittee may deliver all Restricted Data to the DOE or to a person authorized to receive them; or the permittee may destroy all such Restricted Data. In either case, the facility must submit a certification of non-possession of Restricted Data to the DOE.
( b ) In any instance where security facility approval has been suspended or revoked based on a determination of the DOE that further possession of classified matter by the permittee would endanger the common defense and national security, the permittee shall, upon notice from the DOE, immediately deliver all Restricted Data to the DOE along with a certificate of non-possession of Restricted Data.
[82 FR 41508, Sept. 1, 2017]
§ 1021.400 Level of NEPA review. ( a ) This subpart identifies DOE actions that normally: ( 1 ) Do not require preparation of either an EIS or an EA (are categorically excluded from preparation of either document) (appendices A and B to this subpart D);
( 2 ) Require preparation of an EA, but not necessarily an EIS (appendix C to this subpart D); or
( 3 ) Require preparation of an EIS (appendix D to this subpart D).
( b ) Any completed, valid NEPA review does not have to be repeated, and no completed NEPA documents need to be redone by reasons of these regulations, except as provided in § 1021.314.
( c ) If a DOE proposal is encompassed within a class of actions listed in the appendices to this subpart D, DOE shall proceed with the level of NEPA review indicated for that class of actions, unless there are extraordinary circumstances related to the specific proposal that may affect the significance of the environmental effects of the proposal.
( d ) If a DOE proposal is not encompassed within the classes of actions listed in the appendices to this subpart D, or if there are extraordinary circumstances related to the proposal that may affect the significance of the environmental effects of the proposal, DOE shall either: ( 1 ) Prepare an EA and, on the basis of that EA, determine whether to prepare an EIS or a FONSI; or
( 2 ) Prepare an EIS and ROD.
§ 13.38 Reconsideration of initial decision. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, any party may file a motion for reconsideration of the initial decision within 20 days of receipt of the initial decision. If service was made by mail, receipt will be presumed to be five days from the date of mailing in the absence of contrary proof.
( b ) Every such motion must set forth the matters claimed to have been erroneously decided and the nature of the alleged errors. Such motion shall be accompanied by a supporting brief.
( c ) Responses to such motions shall be allowed only upon request of the ALJ.
( d ) No party may file a motion for reconsideration of an initial decision that has been revised in response to a previous motion for reconsideration.
( e ) The ALJ may dispose of a motion for reconsideration by denying it or by issuing a revised initial decision.
( f ) If the ALJ denies a motion for reconsideration, the initial decision shall constitute the final decision of the authority head and shall be final and binding on the parties 30 days after the ALJ denies the motion, unless the initial decision is timely appealed to the authority head in accordance with § 13.39.
( g ) If the ALJ issues a revised initial decision, that decision shall constitute the final decision of the authority head and shall be final and binding on the parties 30 days after it is issued, unless it is timely appealed to the authority head in accordance with § 13.39.
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40391 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MICHAEL ALAN SMARR, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:04-CR-901-ALL

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Michael Alan Smarr appeals his conviction for transporting illegal aliens for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (a)(1)(B)(I). Smarr argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the evidence did not establish that he committed the offense for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Smarr participated in an illegal alien smuggling operation and that members of theNo. 05-40391 -2- operation received sums of money to help the illegal aliens enter the United States illegally and travel within the United States. The evidence was sufficient to support Smarr’s conviction. See United States v. Nolasco-Rosas , 286 F.3d 762, 765 (5th Cir. 2002); United States v. Moser , 123 F.3d 813, 819 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED.
____________________________/

Opinion filed July 17, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Franklin County.

Angela C. Dempsey , Judge.

Chuck Collins of the Collins Law Firm, Monticello, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Of fice of the Attorney General, Tallahassee,

for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, PADOVANO, and RAY , JJ., CONCUR. JOHNNY C

. JONES

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLOR IDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 13

- 2507
§ 81.10 Claim for payment. ( a ) To obtain payment for the trees removed, the producer must submit to the Committee by June 30, 2002, a completed form provided by the Committee. Such form shall include the Committee's certification that the qualifying trees from the blocks or orchards have been removed. If all other conditions for payment are met, AMS will then issue a check to the producer in the amount of $8.50 per eligible tree removed.
( b ) [Reserved]
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 81 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 81 Filed 01/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1 - CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
               RULE 13a-14(b)


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gallery of History, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Todd Axelrod, Chief Executive Office of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

1.	 The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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/ Todd Axelrod
----------------
Todd Axelrod
Chief Executive Officer

August 10, 2007
Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Gallery of History, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Todd Axelrod, Chief Executive Office of the Company, hereby
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1359, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

1.	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
        the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.	The information contained in the Report fairly presented, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of the Company.



/s/   Todd Axelrod
------------------
Todd Axelrod
Chief Executive Officer
May 14, 2003



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.
5616.603-3 Limitations.

Refer to Attachment 5601-1 for approval levels applicable to D&F requirements for letter contracts.

Refer to DFARS 217.74 for additional limitations of the use of letter contracts.

HQ, United States Special Operations Command

Special Operations Forces Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (SOF AT&L-K)

SOFARS 5616

February 2007

Parent topic: 5616.603 Letter Contracts.
#### § 989.139 Compensation for attendance of alternates at Committee meetings.

Whenever a member of the Raisin Administrative Committee has reason to believe that he will be unable to attend a Committee meeting and has so notified his alternate or the Committee manager, such notification or a request from the manager shall be held to be a request for the alternate to attend and he shall be reimbursed for reasonable expenses subject to the limitations contained in § 989.39.

[42 FR 52376, Sept. 30, 1977, as amended at 49 FR 18731, May 2, 1984]
Subpart 925.1 - Buy American Act - Supplies    **Parent topic:** PART 925 - FOREIGN ACQUISITION925.103 Exceptions.       (b) *Nonavailabilty* - (2)(i) *Individual determinations.* Contracting officers may make the determination required by 48 CFR 25.103(b)(2)(i), provided such determination is factually supported in writing. If the contract is estimated to exceed $1 million, the Head of the Contracting Activity must approve the determination.          (ii) Proposals to add an article to the list of nonavailable articles at 48 CFR 25.104, with appropriate justifications, must be submitted for approval by the Senior Procurement Executive and submission to the appropriate council.
Part 5249 - TERMINATION OF CONTRACTS       Subpart 5249.4 - TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT                                                         5249.402 Termination of fixed-price contracts for default.                                                                           5249.402-8 Reporting Information.                                                                                                           5249.403 Termination of cost-reimbursement contracts for default.                                                                             Subpart 5249.70 - SPECIAL TERMINATION REQUIREMENTS                                                         5249.7001 Congressional notification on significant contract terminations.    Subpart 5249.4 - TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT     5249.402 Termination of fixed-price contracts for default.     5249.402-8 Reporting Information.    Within five (5) calendar days after issuing the notice of the termination for default (T4D) or a change in termination status, submit a copy of the FAPIIS entry required by FAR 42.1503(h)(1)(iii), including changes in status of terminations, to the AGC(AI) by email at aio@navy.mil          with the subject "FAR 49.402-8 - T4D" followed by the contract number.5249.403 Termination of cost-reimbursement contracts for default.    (a) Within five (5) calendar days after issuing the notice of the termination or a change in termination status, submit a copy of the FAPIIS entry required by FAR 42.1503(h)(1)(iii), including changes in status of terminations, to the AGC(AI) by email at aio@navy.mil with the subject "FAR       49.402-8 - T4D" followed by the contract number.Subpart 5249.70 - SPECIAL TERMINATION REQUIREMENTS     5249.7001 Congressional notification on significant contract terminations.    (2) When a decision to terminate is          contemplated, the activity shall provide the information required in 5249.7001(3) in          addition to the request for clearance to release the contract termination notification to          DASN(P) by email at usn.pentagon.asstsecnavrdadc.mbx.pabt@us.navy.mil with          the subject “[Activity Name] PGI 249.7001, Contract Termination – Congressional          Notification on Significant Contract Terminations.” Upon receipt and review of the          submitted information, DASN(P) will advise the activity that it may begin its coordination          with the Navy Chief of Legislative Affairs (OLA-N) and other offices as appropriate for the          required Congressional notification.       (3) In addition to the PGI 249.7001(3) requirements:       (xi) Provide a chronological listing of significant actions taken prior to making the termination decision.       (xii) Identify any significant date(s) and event (s) that may impact termination costs if the termination does not occur by the stated date(s).
#### ABRAMS v. PROCTOR.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.

June 18, 1914.)

Chattel Mortgages (§ 225*)—Validity—Disposition op Proceeds oe Property.

In an action by the assignee of a stock of goods against a mortgagee of the goods for conversion, whether there was a tacit understanding between such mortgagee and the mortgagor that the mortgagor could dispose of the goods and apply the proceeds otherwise than in the reduction of the debt, and thus render the mortgage void, should have been submitted to the jury.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Chattel Mortgages, Cent. Dig. §§ 468-470; Dec. Dig. § 225.*]

Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.

Action by William Abrams against Frederick F. Proctor. _ Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

_ Reversed, and new trial granted.

Argued June term, 1914, before SEABURY, PAGE, and BIJUR, JJ_

_ Hart & Tompkins, of New York City (Millard F. Tompkins and Sumner B. Stiles, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Newman & Butler, of New York City (Myron Butler, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

PAGE, J.

Plaintiff sues in conversion. He is both the assignee of the stock of goods of a drug store from the original owner and also the assignee of one who purchased the stock on a sheriff’s sale. Defendant was the druggist’s landlord, also the holder of a second chattel mortgage on the stock; there being a first mortgage in favor of third parties.

Appellant’s point is that, default having occurred in favor both of the first mortgagees and of himself, prior to the acquisition of plaintiff’s title, the title vested at once in the mortgagees, and plaintiff had no title to sustain an action in conversion.

The real controversy apparently centers upon the validity of the chattel mortgages. Respondent’s point is that a chattel mortgage which in terms permits the mortgagor to remain in possession and dispose of the goods and apply the proceeds otherwise than in reduction of the debt is fraudulent and void as to creditors, and that, even if no such express provision be contained in the mortgage, one may be implied from circumstances, citing Hangen v. Hachemeister, 114 N. Y. 566, 21 N. E. 1046, 5 L. R. A. 137, 11 Am. St. Rep. 691. No such provision is contained in either of these mortgages, plaintiff claiming only that they may be implied from the circumstances. On this point, however, he obtained the direction of a verdict, although he himself necessarily concedes by his claim that the question whether such an agreement should be implied must necessarily'be one of fact to be submitted to the jury.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.
Deloitte Deloitte & Touche LLP Certified Public Accountants 333 Southeast Second Avenue Suite 3600 Miami, FL 33131 USA Tel: +1 305 372 3100 Fax: +1 302 372 3160 www.deloitte.com**REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**LNR Partners, LLC Miami Beach, Florida We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria, that LNR Partners, LLC (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB for the commercial mortgage-backed securities transactions for which the Company served as special servicer, and that were registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), (3)(i)(c), (3)(i)(d), (3)(ii), (3)(iii), (3)(iv), (4)(v), (4)(ix), (4)(x), (4)(xi), (4)(xii), (4)(xiii), (4)(xiv) and (4) (xv) which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to 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 about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation 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, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each asset- backed transaction included in the Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above 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, 2014 for the commercial mortgage-backed securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.   /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP February 23, 2015