alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
October 22, 2015

In accordance with the enclosed Memorandum Opinion, below is the judgment in the numbered cause set out herein to be entered in the Minutes of this Court as of the 22nd day of October, 2015.

10-14-00255-CR	PATRICK KIRK PITZER v. THE STATE OF TEXAS - ON APPEAL FROM THE 272ND DISTRICT COURT OF BRAZOS COUNTY - TRIAL COURT NO. 11-03284-CRF-272 – AFFIRMED - Memorandum Opinion by Justice Scoggins:

	“This cause came on to be heard on the transcript of the record of the Court below, and the same being considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error in the judgment, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed by the Court that the judgment be in all things affirmed, and that the appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended and that this decision be certified below for observance.”

# image1.png
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-21-00092-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 2

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 0780991D

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

SAMUEL LYN REAVES A/K/A SAMUEL L. REAVES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 12, 2021, Samuel Lyn Reaves attempted to appeal his conviction for 

felony driving while intoxicated, for which judgment was rendered on October 25, 

2001.1

Because Reaves filed his notice of appeal nearly twenty years after it was due, we 

notified him of our concern that we lacked jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a). 

We explained that unless he or another party filed a response showing grounds for 

continuing the appeal, it could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 44.3. Reaves filed a response, but it did not relate to the issue of timeliness or 

anything that would show grounds for continuing the appeal.2

Our appellate jurisdiction is triggered through a timely notice of appeal. Pfeiffer 

v. State, 363 S.W.3d 594, 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). If a notice of appeal is not timely 

filed, we do not have jurisdiction to address the merits of the appeal and may take no 

1

In his notice of appeal, Reaves contends that the punishment assessed exceeded 

what he and the State agreed to, that the board of pardons and paroles somehow 

converted his sentence from an offense punishable as a second-degree felony to one 

punishable as a first-degree felony, that no evidence supported his conviction, that due 

process was violated, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that he was 

incompetent at the time of his plea agreement.

2

In his response, Reaves protests that there was no evidence to support his 

conviction, that his sentence was unfair because it was at the high end of the 

punishment range, and that ineffective assistance of counsel rendered his plea 

involuntary.
3

action other than to dismiss it. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1998).

Because Reaves’s notice of appeal was untimely, we dismiss the appeal for want 

of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: August 19, 2021
Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 65 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 65 Filed 04/27/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### § 20.1205 [Reserved]
PGI 3.104-4 Statutory and related

prohibitions, restrictions, and requirements.

(a) Contractor and Agency personnel that require NDAs due to their assigned activities will provide

copies of their NDA to the contracting officer. This copy will become part of the contract.

(b) Contractor and Agency personnel that frequently participate in activities that require access to

source selection information, CUI, or any other protected information should sign a blanket NDA at

the beginning of the fiscal year that is in effect for that year. These personnel will provide a copy of

their blanket NDA to each contracting officer that requires their participation/expertise throughout

the fiscal year. The contracting officer will sign the copy and keep for the contract file.

Parent topic: PGI SUBPART 3.1 – SAFEGUARDS
Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 28 Filed 03/16/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 28 Filed 03/16/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 28 Filed 03/16/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00781-MHT-TFM Document 28 Filed 03/16/2007 Page 4 of 4
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-60024

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TOMMY C. MARSH,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:96-CV-33 W

- - - - - - - - - -

May 27, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Tommy C. Marsh, federal prisoner #03426-043, appeals from

the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. He

argues that the district court erred by denying his claim that

his conviction for using and carrying a firearm in relation to a

drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), should be reversed in

light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bailey v. United States,

516 U.S. 137 (1995). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
No. 97-60024

-2-

by the district court. See United States v. Marsh, No. 4:96-CV33 W (S.D. Miss. Dec. 31, 1996). Marsh’s contention that he

received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, raised for the

first time on appeal, does not rise to the level of plain error. 

See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1429

(5th Cir. 1996)(en banc). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED. Marsh’s motion to enlarge the record on appeal is

DENIED.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         164,755
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  367,804
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,734
<INVENTORY>                                  1,883,075
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,033,979
<PP&E>                                         310,281
<DEPRECIATION>                                 225,645
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,017,202
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,534,313
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,539,426
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,516,651
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                      2,255,678
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,279,939
<CGS>                                        1,806,103
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,012,302
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           (1,538,466)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             606,606
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,145,072)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,145,072
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.49)





</TABLE>
§ 97.175 Fees and charges. The following fees and charges apply to the services and actions specified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section: ( a ) Application: ( 1 ) Initial fee for filing, examination, and certificate issuance—$5,150
( 2 ) Submission of new application data prior to issuance of certificate—$432
( 3 ) Granting extensions for responding to data requests—$89
( 4 ) Refunds pursuant to § 97.178 may be issued for portions of the initial application fee as follows: examination—$3,864, and certificate issuance—$768.
( b ) Reconsideration of application—$589
( c ) Revival of an abandoned application—$518
( d ) Appeals: ( 1 ) Filing a petition for protest to Commissioner—$4,118
( 2 ) Appeal to Secretary (refundable if appeal overturns protest to Commissioner)—$4,942
( e ) Field inspections or other services requiring travel by a representative of the Plant Variety Protection Office, made at the request of the applicant, shall be reimbursable in full (including travel, per diem or subsistence, salary, and administrative costs), in accordance with standardized government travel regulations.
( f ) Any other service not covered in this section, including, but not limited to, reproduction of records, authentication, correction, or reissuance of a certificate, recordation or revision of assignment, and late fees will be charged for at rates prescribed by the Commissioner, but in no event shall they exceed $97 per employee hour. Charges will also be made for materials, space, and administrative costs.
[85 FR 432, Jan. 6, 2020]
Subpart 2110.70 - Contract Specifications

Parent topic: PART 2110 - SPECIFICATIONS, STANDARDS, AND OTHER PURCHASE

DESCRIPTIONS

2110.7000 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes mandatory specifications for performance under FEGLI Program contracts.

2110.7001 Definitions.

Investment income, as used in this subpart, means the net amount on an investment of FEGLI

Program funds earned by the contractor after deducting reasonable, necessary, and properly

allocated investment expenses.

Significant event, as used in this subpart, means any occurrence or anticipated occurrence that

might reasonably be expected to have a material effect upon the contractor's ability to meet its

obligations under the LIFAR.

2110.7002 Contractor investment of FEGLI Program funds.

(a) The Contractor is required to invest and reinvest all FEGLI Program funds on hand, including any

attributable to the special contingency reserve (as used in 5 U.S.C. 8712), until needed to discharge

promptly the obligations incurred under the contract. Within the constraints of safety and liquidity of

investments, the Contractor must seek to maximize investment income. However, the Contractor will

not be responsible for any actions taken at the direction of OPM.

(b) The Contractor is required to credit income earned from its investment of FEGLI Program funds

to the FEGLI Program. Thus, the Contractor must be able to allocate investment income to the

FEGLI Program in an appropriate manner. If the Contractor fails to invest funds on hand, properly

allocate investment income, or credit any income due to the contract, for whatever reason, it must

return or credit any investment income lost to OPM or the FEGLI Program, retroactive to the date

that such funds should have been originally invested, allocated, or credited in accordance with the

clause at 2152.210-70 of this chapter.

2110.7003 Significant events.

The contractor is required to inform the contracting officer of all significant events.

2110.7004 Contract clauses.

(a) The clause at 2152.210-70 shall be inserted in all FEGLI Program contracts.
(b) The clause at 2152.210-71 shall be inserted in all FEGLI Program contracts.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

)

In the Matter of the Extradition of )

MARIA del ROSARIO MORENO-VAZQUEZ, ) CV. NO. 3:06cv761-MEF-CSC

a/k/a MARIA COONLEY )

)

Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

Assistant United States Attorney Christopher Snyder moves to withdraw as counsel

for the United States in this matter. Originally, this case was assigned to Assistant United

States Attorney Todd Brown. In July, however, AUSA Brown was called to serve on active

duty in Iraq. As a result, this case was temporarily assigned to Assistant United States

Attorney Christopher Snyder during AUSA Brown’s absence. AUSA Brown has now

completed his tour in Iraq and has returned to his duties as an AUSA in this District. As a

result, AUSA Snyder moves to withdraw as an attorney in this matter.

Respectfully submitted this 25th day of September, 2006.

LEURA G. CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Christopher A. Snyder 

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Assistant United States Attorney

One Court Square, Suite 201

Montgomery, AL 36104

Phone: (334)223-7280

Fax: (334)223-7135

E-mail: christopher.a.snyder@usdoj.gov 

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 9 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

)

In the Matter of the Extradition of )

MARIA del ROSARIO MORENO-VAZQUEZ, ) CV. NO. 3:06cv761-MEF-CSC

a/k/a MARIA COONLEY )

)

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on September 25, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of

such filing to the following: Ben Elton Bruner. 

/s/ Christopher A. Snyder 

CHRISTOPHER A. SNYDER

Case 3:06-cv-00761-CSC Document 9 Filed 09/25/2006 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PATRICIA BURKETT, Administratrix of the )

Estate of JEREMY BURKETT, deceased, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) 1:06-CV-00775-TFM

v. )

)

TIMOTHY EUGENE McCRAY, et al )

)

Defendants. )

)

ORDER

After the Court’s review of this file, it is, for good cause, ORDERED as follows:

1. Supplemental Rule 26(f) Conference and Report

To take into consideration the parties included after the original Rule 26(f) report, counsel

are directed to conduct a supplemental Rule 26(f) Conference. The attorneys of record and all

unrepresented parties are jointly responsible for arranging the conference, for attempting in good

faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court a written report

outlining the plan. The Updated Rule 26(f) report containing the discovery plan shall be filed

as soon as practicable but not later than January 31, 2007. The report of the parties should

comply with Form 35, Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. Dispositive Motions

The longstanding practice in this district is that dispositive motions shall be filed no later

than ninety (90) days prior to the pretrial date. If the parties seek to vary from that schedule, they

should present, in the plan, specific case-related reasons for the requested variance. 

Case 1:06-cv-00775-TFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 1 of 2
3. Scheduling for Trial

The court may or may not hold a scheduling conference before issuing a scheduling order,

and counsel may indicate any preference on the updated Rule 26(f) report. If the court sets a

scheduling conference, counsel may participate by conference call as circumstances may warrant.

This case will be set for trial during one of the assigned judge's regularly scheduled civil trial

terms. The pretrial date is normally set within four to six weeks of a scheduled trial term. The dates

of each judge's civil trial terms are available on the court's website located at

http://www.almd.uscourts.gov in the civil case information section.

The scheduling order entered by the court will follow the form of the Uniform Scheduling

Order adopted by the judges of this court. The Uniform Scheduling Order is also available on the

court's website.

DONE this 8th day of January, 2007.

/s/Terry F. Moorer

TERRY F. MOORER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00775-TFM Document 41 Filed 01/08/2007 Page 2 of 2
§ 15.43 Reasons for compromising a claim. A claim may be compromised for one or more of the reasons set forth below: ( a ) The full amount cannot be collected because: ( 1 ) The debtor is unable to pay the full amount within a reasonable time; or
( 2 ) The debtor refuses to pay the claim in full and the Government is unable to enforce collection in full within a reasonable time by enforced collection proceedings.
( b ) There is a real doubt concerning the Government's ability to prove its case in Court for the full amount claimed, either because of the legal issues involved or a bona fide dispute as to the facts.
( c ) The cost of collecting the claim does not justify the enforced collection of the full amount. The NRC shall apply this reason for compromise in accordance with the guidance in 31 CFR 902.2.
( d ) The NRC shall determine the debtor's inability to pay, the Government's ability to enforce collection, and the amounts that are acceptable in compromise in accordance with the FCCS, 31 CFR part 902.
( e ) Compromises payable in installments are discouraged, but, if necessary, must be in the form of a legally enforceable agreement for the reinstatement of the prior indebtedness less sums paid thereon. The agreement also must provide that in the event of default— ( 1 ) The entire balance of the debt becomes immediately due and payable; and
( 2 ) The Government has the right to enforce any security interest.
[47 FR 7616, Feb. 22, 1982, as amended at 55 FR 32380, Aug. 9, 1990; 67 FR 30322, May 6, 2002]
Exhibit 31.1.  CERTIFICATION  I, R. Allan Bradley, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Questar Pipeline Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008;  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 quarterly 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. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and we 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.  5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  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.     May 7, 2008 /s/R. Allan Bradley R. Allan Bradley President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
 
 EXHIBIT 11 - COMPUTATION OF NET EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE (UNAUDITED)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
                                     Three Months Ended
                                        November 30,
                                       1995      1994
                                  ------------------------
                                   (Amounts in thousands,
                                   except per share data)
<S>                                   <C>       <C> 
Primary
 Average shares outstanding            11,293     8,480
 Net effect of dilutive stock
  options--based on the
  treasury stock method
  using average market price               15       350
                                      -------   -------
    Total                              11,308     8,830
                                      =======   =======
 
 
 Net income                           $ 2,771   $ 2,638
                                      =======   =======
 
 Per share data:
 Net income                             $0.25   $  0.30
                                      =======   =======
 
Fully diluted
 Average shares outstanding            11,293     8,480
 Net effect of dilutive stock
  options--based on the
  treasury stock method
  using average market price
  or closing price if higher               15       384
 Net effect of dilutive
  convertible debentures--
  based on the stated conversion
  price of $14 per share                          1,786
                                      -------   -------
   Total                               11,308    10,650
                                      =======   =======
 
 Net income                           $ 2,771   $ 2,638
 Convertible bond interest,
  net of income tax effect                          290
                                      -------   -------
                                      $ 2,771   $ 2,928
                                      =======   =======
 
 Per share data:
 Net income                             $0.25   $  0.28
                                      =======   =======
 
</TABLE>
                                   EXHIBIT 11
###### Editorial Note on Part 26

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 26 appear at 87 FR 71455, Nov. 22, 2022.

#### § 26.33 Behavioral observation.

Licensees and other entities shall ensure that the individuals who are subject to this subpart are subject to behavioral observation. Behavioral observation must be performed by individuals who are trained under § 26.29 to detect behaviors that may indicate possible use, sale, or possession of illegal drugs; use or possession of alcohol on site or while on duty; or impairment from fatigue or any cause that, if left unattended, may constitute a risk to public health and safety or the common defense and security. Individuals who are subject to this subpart shall report any FFD concerns about other individuals to the personnel designated in the FFD policy.
#### § 955.12 Committee.

*Committee* means the Vidalia Onion Committee, established pursuant to § 955.20.