alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00673-CR

Ramiro Rogerio, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 147TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 1010156, HONORABLE WILFORD FLOWERS, JUDGE PRESIDING

On August 24, 2001, the district court placed appellant Ramiro Rogerio on deferred

adjudication community supervision after Rogerio pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine. Rogerio

filed a motion for new trial on September 20, and gave notice of appeal on November 14.

No motion for new trial will lie from an order deferring adjudication. Hammack v.

State, 963 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex. App.—Austin 1998, no pet.). Rogerio’s motion for new trial was

a nullity and did not extend the time for perfecting appeal. Id. at 201; see also Tex. R. App. P. 26.2.

Because notice of appeal was not timely filed, we lack jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeal

in any manner other than by dismissing it for want of jurisdiction. Id.; see also Slaton v. State, 981

S.W.2d 208 (Tex. Crim. App.1998); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522-23 (Tex. Crim. App.

1996).
2

The appeal is dismissed.

 

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, Yeakel and Patterson 

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: January 17, 2002

Do Not Publish
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3530 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3530

        To revise the limitation on Impact Aid special payments.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 15, 2006

  Mrs. Clinton (for herself and Mr. Schumer) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
        To revise the limitation on Impact Aid special payments.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Impact Aid Update Act of 2006''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON IMPACT AID SPECIAL PAYMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 8002 of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7702) is amended in subsection 
(i)(1)--
            (1) by striking ``1997'' and inserting ``2003''; and
            (2) by striking ``1996)'' and inserting ``2002)''.
    (b) Retroactive Applicability.--The amendments made by this section 
apply retroactively to all of fiscal year 2006.
                                 <all>
```
Subpart 913.3 - Simplified Acquisition

Methods

Parent topic: PART 913 - SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION PROCEDURES

913.307 Forms.

(b) Optional Forms 347 and 348, or DOE F 4250.3, may be used for purchase orders using simplified

acquisition procedures. These forms shall not be used as the contractor's invoice. See 48 CFR

12.204 regarding the use of SF-1449 for the acquisition of commercial items using simplified

acquisition procedures.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) CR. NO. 2:06-mj-75-DRB 

)

RONALD MCQUEEN ) 

GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR DETENTION HEARING

Comes now the United States of America, by and through Leura Garrett Canary, United

States Attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3142(e) and (f) moves

for a detention hearing for the above-captioned defendant.

1. Eligibility of Cases

This case is eligible for a detention order because this case involves:

Crime of violence (18 U.S.C. 3156)

Maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death

X 10 + year drug offense

Felony, with two prior convictions in the above categories

X Serious risk the defendant will flee

 X Serious risk of obstruction of justice

2. Reason For Detention

The Court should detain defendant because there are no conditions of release which will

reasonably assure:

X Defendant's appearance as required

 X Safety of any other person and the community

Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

3. Rebuttable Presumption

The United States will invoke the rebuttable presumption against defendant under Section

3142(e).

X Probable cause to believe defendant committed 10 + year drug offense or an

offense in which a firearm was used or carried under Section 924(c)

Previous conviction for "eligible" offense committed while on pretrial bond

A period of five years has not elapsed from defendant's conviction or release

from imprisonment for the offense described above

4. Time For Detention Hearing

The United States requests the Court conduct the detention hearing:

At the initial appearance

X After continuance of 3 days 

The Government requests leave of Court to file a supplemental motion with additional

grounds or presumption for detention should this be necessary.

Respectfully submitted this the 28th day of July, 2006.

LEURA GARRETT CANARY 

United States Attorney

/s/ Tommie Brown Hardwick

TOMMIE BROWN HARDWICK

Assistant United States Attorney

Post Office Box 197

Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0197

334.223.7280

334.223.7135 fax

tommie.hardwick@usdoj.gov

Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 4 Filed 07/28/2006 Page 2 of 2
[UNIVERSAL DETECTION TECHNOLOGY LETTERHEAD]


October 14, 2004

Astor Capital, Inc.
9595 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 700
Beverly Hills, CA 90212

      RE:  OFFICE LEASE - 9595 WILSHIRE BLVD. - SUITE 700

Dear Sirs:

Reference is made to the certain Lease Agreement between CSDVS Limited
Partnership ("Landlord") and Astor Capital, Inc. ("Astor"), effective as of
February 1, 2004, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and by this
reference, made a part hereof.

Universal Detection Technology, Inc. ("UDTT") is desirous of occupying the
premises located at 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 and
assuming the Lease Agreement in its entirely from Astor.

In consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, as well
as, other consideration, the sufficiency and receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, Astor agrees to assign the Lease Agreement to UDTT in its
entirety, effective November 1, 2004 to UDTT. Astor warrants and represents that
all of its accounts with the Landlord are paid in full and in good standing.

As further consideration for the assignment of the Lease Agreement to UDTT,
Astor hereby assigns to UDTT all of its right, title and interest in and to any
security deposits or other refundable amounts to which it may be entitled.

UDTT shall be responsible for all terms and conditions contained in the Lease
Agreement as though it entered into such agreement directly with Landlord.

Effective November 1, 2004, and continuing on a month to month basis, UDTT shall
sublease to Astor certain common areas within the premises on a non-exclusive
basis for a monthly fee equal to Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), payable on the
first day of each month, commencing on November 1, 2004.

If the aforementioned is accepted and agreed to, please indicate same by
affixing your signature below, and together with ours shall represent the entire
agreement.

Sincerely,
UNIVERSAL DETECTION TECHNOLOGY, INC.


By:  /s/ Jacques Tizabi
------------------------------------
Jacques Tizabi
Its: CEO


Accepted, Understood & Agreed:
ASTOR CAPITAL, INC.


By:  /s/ Ali Moussavi
------------------------------------
Its:  MANAGING PARTNER
**Exhibit 32**

 

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of MxEnergy Holdings Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Jeffrey A. Mayer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Chaitu Parikh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

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.

 

 
|                    | /s/ JEFFREY A. MAYER    |
|--------------------|-------------------------|
|               | Jeffrey A. Mayer        |
|               | Chief Executive Officer |
|               |                    |
|               |                    |
|               | /s/ CHAITU PARIKH       |
|               | Chaitu Parikh           |
|               | Chief Financial Officer |
|               |                    |
| September 28, 2007 |                    |

 

----
327.409 Solicitation provision and contract

clause.

The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 352.227-14, Rights in Data - Exceptional

Circumstances, and any appropriate alternates in lieu of the FAR clause at 52.227-14, Rights in

Data-General, whenever a DEC executed in accordance with Agency policy and procedures calls for

its use. Prior to using this clause, a DEC must be executed in accordance with Agency policy and

procedures. The contracting officer should reference the DEC in the solicitation and shall attach a

copy of the executed DEC to the contract.

Parent topic: Subpart 327.4 - Rights in Data and Copyrights
#### § 959.40 Expenses.

The committee is authorized to incur such expenses as the Secretary may find are reasonable and likely to be incurred during each fiscal period for its maintenance and functioning, and for such purposes as the Secretary, pursuant to this subpart, determines to be appropriate. Handlers shall share expenses on the basis of a fiscal period. Each handler's share of such expenses shall be proportionate to the ratio between the total quantity of onions handled by him as the first handler thereof during a fiscal period and the quantity of onions handled by all handlers as first handlers thereof during such fiscal period.
#### In re BROOKLYN CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

July 31, 1914.)

In the matter of the application of the Brooklyn Children's Aid Society, for a Writ of mandamus, etc.

PER CURIAM.

This order must be affirmed. The department of taxes and assessments of the city of New York, or the officers who compose it, have no duty whatever in the premises. We prefer not to consider now the merits of this application, because, should we hold with the appellant on that question, we should be obliged nevertheless to affirm the order from which it appeals. If, on consideration of the question, it desires to begin a new proceeding, it should do so against the officers who are charged with the custody of the roll of assessments for local improvements, and who have powers and duties in regard thereto, and not against the particular department of the city of New York which is specified in the notice of motion herein, and which has no power or duty in the premises. Order affirmed, without costs.
Order entered February 14, 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 01313
- CV INSURANCE ALLIANCE, Appellant
V. LAKE TEXOMA HIGHPORT , LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 397th Judicial District Court Grayson County, Texa s Trial Court Cause No. 08
- 0604
- 397 

### O RDER The Court has before it appellant’s February 12, 2013 second agreed motion to extend time to file appellant’s brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS appellant to file its brief by March 20, 2013. No furt her extensions will be granted absent a showing of exceptional circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
#### § 13.15 Ex parte contacts.

No party or person (except employees of the ALJ's office) shall communicate in any way with the ALJ on any matter at issue in a case, unless on notice and opportunity for all parties to participate. This provision does not prohibit a person or party from inquiring about the status of a case or asking routine questions concerning administrative functions or procedures.
#### § 1800.10 Purpose and scope.

Pursuant to Articles IV.i.(1), (7), (15), and VII.e. of the Northeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact (enacted by the “Omnibus Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact Consent Act of 1985,” Public Law 99-240, 99 Stat. 1842, Title I) (the “Compact”), the Northeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission (the “Commission”) establishes through this part the conditions that it deems necessary and appropriate to be met by a state requesting eligibility to become a party state to this Compact. The Commission shall apply these conditions to evaluate the petition of any state seeking to be eligible to become a party state pursuant to Article VII of the Compact.
313.301 Government-wide commercial

purchase card.

(b) Make all HHS transactions utilizing the government-wide commercial purchase card in

accordance with the HHS Purchase Card Program.

Parent topic: Subpart 313.3 - Simplified Acquisition Methods
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite ofcataloging and locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Annual report**** 
SuDocNumber:E1.68/2-14:
ItemNumber:0474-B-23(online)
CGPsystem Number:000602256
 
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
 **
Form of Nonqualified Stock Option Agreement (executives and George L. Fotiades)



 Exhibit 10.3 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 NON-QUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT

 2007 PTS Holdings Corp. Stock Incentive Plan 
 THIS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) is made as of October 23, 2009, between PTS Holdings Corp., a Delaware corporation
(hereinafter the “Company”), and the individual named on the signature page hereto (hereinafter the “Participant”). 
 Reference is made to the Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement, dated as of the “Date of Grant” set forth on Appendix A hereto (the “Agreement”), which Agreement
reflects the terms and conditions of a grant of Options (the “Existing Options”), and which Agreement shall be amended by this Amendment. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the
Agreement or the 2007 PTS Holdings Corp. Stock Incentive Plan, as it may be amended from time to time (the “Plan”), as the case may be. 
 WHEREAS, the Committee and the Participant wish to amend the Agreement to reflect the results of an option exchange (the “Exchange”) pursuant to which the Participant elected to cancel
the unvested portion of the Existing Options, as of the date hereof, in exchange for a new grant of an Option under the Plan. 
 NOW THEREFORE, for good and valid consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 
 1. Section 2 of the Agreement shall be amended as of the date hereof to add the following provision to the end thereof: 
 “Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, as of October 23, 2009, the Options which are then unvested and not yet exercisable shall be cancelled and forfeited in exchange for the grant
of an Option under the Plan in the form of Appendix B hereto.” 
 Consistent with the foregoing, from and after October 23,
2009, the Options shall only be vested and exercisable to the extent then vested and exercisable as of such date, with respect to the number of “Vested Options” set forth on Appendix A to this Amendment, subject to adjustment as set
forth in the Plan, and no additional Shares shall be eligible to become vested or exercisable under the Options. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date set forth
above. 
  

			
	PTS HOLDINGS CORP.
		
	By:	 	 
		 	


  

	
	 Agreed and acknowledged as
  
 of the date first above written:

	
	  








 Appendix A 
 Non-Qualified Stock Option Agreement 
 Name of Participant: 
 Date of Grant: 
 Option Price: $1,000 per Share

 Unvested Options (cancelled in Exchange): 
 Vested Options (not cancelled in Exchange):
#### § 986.56 Right of the Secretary.

The members and alternates for members and any agent or employee appointed or employed by the Council 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.
Case 2:06-cv-00712-MEF-CSC Document 3 Filed 08/17/2006 Page 1 of 1
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

49–011 2006

109th Congress, 2d Session – – – – – – – – – – – – House Document 109–130 

CONTINUATION OF A NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH 

RESPECT TO THE EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT 

OF 1979 

COMMUNICATION 

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 

TRANSMITTING

A NOTICE OF CONTINUATION OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY BEYOND 

AUGUST 17, 2006 DECLARED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER 13222 OF 

AUGUST 17, 2001, TO DEAL WITH THE THREAT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY, FOREIGN POLICY, AND ECONOMY OF THE 

UNITED STATES CAUSED BY THE LAPSE OF THE EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1979, PURSUANT TO 50 U.S.C. 1622(d). 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2006.—Referred to the Committee on International 

Relations and ordered to be printed 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13

pwalker on PRODPC60 with HEARING
(1) 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, August 3, 2006. 

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies 

Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), provides for the automatic termination of 

a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its 

declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and 

transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is 

to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance 

with this provision, I have sent the enclosed notice, stating that the 

emergency caused by the lapse of the Export Administration Act of 

1979, as amended, is to continue in effect for 1 year beyond August 

17, 2006, to the Federal Register for publication. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE W. BUSH. 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with HEARING

pwalker on PRODPC60 with HEARING
(3) 

NOTICE

CONTINUATION OF EMERGENCY REGARDING EXPORT CONTROL

REGULATIONS

On August 17, 2001, consistent with the authority provided me 

under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 

U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), I issued Executive Order 13222. In that order, 

I declared a national emergency with respect to the unusual and 

extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and 

economy of the United States in light of the expiration of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2401 

et seq.). Because the Export Administration Act has not been renewed by the Congress, the national emergency declared on August 

17, 2001, must continue in effect beyond August 17, 2006. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies 

Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national 

emergency declared in Executive Order 13222. 

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress. 

GEORGE W. BUSH. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, August 3, 2006. 

Æ 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with HEARING
Order filed May 31, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00489-CV

____________

IN THE INTEREST OF A.A., a Child

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-04041J

ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of 

the parent-child relationship is at issue (“parental termination case”). The notice of 

appeal was filed May 17, 2012. Appellant has established indigence or is presumed to be 

indigent. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(a). The reporter’s record was due within 10 days 

after the notice of appeal was filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1(b); 28.4(a)(1). The record 

has not been filed.

Appeals in parental termination cases and child protection cases are to be brought 

to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. See Tex. R. 
Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (effective May 1, 2012). The trial and appellate courts are jointly 

responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 

35.3(c). The trial court must direct the court reporter to immediately commence the 

preparation of the reporter’s record and must arrange for a substitute reporter, if 

necessary. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.4(b)(1). 

Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely in this accelerated appeal, 

we issue the following order:

We order Cara Skinner, the substitute court reporter, to file the record in this 

appeal on or before June 11, 2012. If Cara Skinner does not timely file the record as 

ordered, the court will issue an order requiring her to appear at a hearing to show cause 

why the record has not been timely filed and why she should not be held in contempt of 

court for failing to file the record as ordered. Contempt of court is punishable by a fine 

and/or confinement in jail.

PER CURIAM
Contact Summary April 30, 2012 Bob Mastropietro, VP Technology, Lodge Cottrell Telephone: 908

- 304

- 2616
Mr. Mastropietro was contacted for information on the performance of existing ESP at portland cement plants. He stated that existing ESP, with any modifi cations, could probably reduce PM to about 0.01

– 0.02 gr/dscf. He thought they could be modified to reach levels as low as 0.002

– 0.004 by adding additional fields, but that it would be costly and may be limited due to the additional space requirements.
2007-2024.

#### Martin v. Design Constr. Servs., Inc.

Summit App. No. 23422, 2007-Ohio-4805. Discretionary appeal accepted and cause consolidated with 2007-2023, *Martin v. Design Constr. Servs., Inc.,*Summit App. No. 23422, 2007-Ohio-4805.

O’Donnell, J., dissents.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CR. NO. 1:06CR170-WHA

)

ROY DALE WALLACE )

ORDER

Pursuant to the defendant’s Notice of Intent to Change Plea (Doc. #355) filed on

February 23, 2007, it is hereby

ORDERED that the defendant’s change of plea hearing be and is hereby set for 

March 2, 2007, at 2:00 p.m., in courtroom 4B, United States Courthouse Complex,

One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a court reporter for this proceeding. If the

defendant is in custody, the United States Marshal or the person having custody of the

defendant shall produce the defendant for the proceeding.

Done this 23rd day of February, 2007.

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cr-00170-WHA-CSC Document 356 Filed 02/23/2007 Page 1 of 1