alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered September 6, 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 16
- 00624
- CR No. 05
- 16
- 00625
- CR
JAMAL DESMOND MCCLEN TON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F11
- 26246
- I , F16
- 75306
- I



### O RDER Appellant’s August 30, 2016 motion seeking appointment of an “MHR lawyer” is before the Court. Our records show that on May 23, 2016, appellant was adjudicated guilty of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and found guilty of attempted theft of an automated teller machine containing less than $300,000. In both cases, punishment was assessed at ten years’ imprisonment. Before the plea and adjudication hearing, appellant signed documents indicating he was waiving appointment of counsel. Nevertheless, the trial court determined that appellant was indigent and appointed Bethany Stephens as counsel for appellant. Stephens
represen ted appellant during the plea and adjudication hearing.On June 1, 2016, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. There is no indication in our

records that counsel has been appointed to represent appellant on appeal. No docketing statement has been fi led , and the reporter’s record is overdue. The Court GRANTS appellant’s motion to the extent we ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine whether appellant remains indigent and would be entitled to the appointment of appellate counsel. In th e event the trial court determines appellant is entitled to appointment of counsel, we ORDER the trial court to appoint counsel for appellant.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include the order appointing counse l or else written findings showing appellant is not entitled to counsel, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
#### § 1704.9 Availability and retention of transcripts, recordings, and minutes, and applicable fees.

The Board shall make promptly available to the public in the Public Reading Room the transcript, electronic recording, or minutes of the discussion of any item on the agenda or of any testimony received at a closed meeting, except for such item, or items, of discussion or testimony as determined by the Board to contain matters which may be withheld under the exemptive provisions of § 1704.4. Copies of the nonexempt portions of the transcript or minutes, or transcription of such recordings disclosing the identity of each speaker, shall be furnished to any person at the actual cost of transcription or duplication. If at some later time the Board determines that there is no further justification for withholding a portion of a transcript, electronic recording, or minutes or other item of information from the public which has previously been withheld, such portion or information shall be made publicly available. The Board shall maintain a complete verbatim copy of the transcript, a complete copy of the minutes, or a complete electronic recording of each meeting, or a portion thereof, closed to the public for at least two years after such meeting, or until one year after the conclusion of any Board proceeding with respect to which the meeting, or a portion thereof, was held, whichever occurs later.
#### POLET, Respondent, v. ERIE PRESERVING CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

June 1, 1906.)

Action by Joseph Polet against the Brie Preserving Company.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
#### Gertrude J. Gallagher et al., Respondents, v. St. Raymonds Roman Catholic Church, Appellant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 20, 1965, reversed on the law, without costs, and complaint dismissed. The findings of fact implicit in the jury’s verdict are affirmed. The plaintiff wife was injured when she fell while leaving defendant’s building after attending a meeting. The accident occurred at 11:15 p.m. The exterior lights, which would ordinarily illuminate the outside stairway and entrance, were not on. Plaintiff fell over a single step at the threshold of a recessed doorway leading to a landing at the top of an exterior stairway. The owner of a building is under no duty, in the absence of statute, to illuminate an exterior stairway unless conditions of peculiar danger exist which may call for special warning *(McCabe*v. *MacKay,*253 N. Y. 440; *Kiernan*v. *Roman Catholic Church of St. John the Evangelist,*11 A D 2d 997, affd. 10 N Y 2d 853). No statutory duty is alleged here. The only possible issue regarding a hazardous condition raised by the evidence and the only possible significant distinction between this case and *Kiernan*is whether a handrail was within reach of the plaintiff as she stepped down the single step. However, this factor is insufficient to constitute an exception to the rule. “ The mere absence of a handrail on an exterior stairway is not a defective condition, an unusual hazard or a peculiar danger” *(Bohlig*v. *Schmitt,*5 A D 2d 1002, affd. 5 N Y 2d 885). In our opinion, plaintiff was not entitled to rely on the fact that the lights were on when she entered the building or that the lights had usually been on when she left the building on previous occasions. Plaintiff knew that the lights were off before she left the building. Her testimony was that she saw that it was dark outside when she opened the door. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Brennan, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.
Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 7 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 7 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 2 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 7 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 3 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 7 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 4 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 7 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 5 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 7 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 6 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 7 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 7 of 7
Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 7-2 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 7-2 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 7-2 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:06-cv-00667-WKW-WC Document 7-2 Filed 08/11/2006 Page 4 of 4
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105·3901

OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR 

### OCT t 

### 4 '009

The Honorable Kyle Self Greenville Rancheria ofMaidu Indians P. O. Box 279 Greenville, CA 95947 Dear Chairperson Self: In December 2008, then EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson sent a letter informing you ofthe designations for the 2006 24-hour national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine particles (PM2.S). Yourreservation was located in an area that was designated as attainment/unclassifiable for that standard. Those designation decisions werebased on the 2005-2007 air quality monitoring data, which were the most current data at that time. However, these designations were never finalized because they were not published in the Federal Register. Current EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has reviewed the December 2008 decisions and has decided to promulgate area designations based on consideration ofnew 2006-2008 airquality monitoring data, the most recent data available. I am writing to inform you that, based on consideration of2006-2008 air quality monitoring data, two additional areas in California, Shasta County and Plumas County, appearto be violatingthe 2006 24-hour PM2S NAAQS. Since yourreservation is located within theboundaries ofPlumas County, EPA is reviewing our initial recommendation for your reservation. EPA is deferring the area designation for Plumas County so that EPA and the tribes may collect sufficient information to assess these areas before promulgatingdesignations. As a first step in this process, EPA will gather and evaluate information. Once an evaluation is completed, we will notify you ofour intended designation for your reservation. Please note that EPAhas received requests from the Air Resources Board to exclude certain monitored violations in Plumas Countypursuant to our exceptional events rule. We plan to announce intended designations within the next several months and at least 120 days prior to promulgating final designations. You will have an opportunity to comment on EPA's intended designation once it is announced.

Printed on Recycled PaperWelook forward to continuingto work with you and your staffto develop designations for the 24-hourPM2.5NAAQS in a timely manner. Ifyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Your air quality staffmay wish to contact Colleen McKaughan, Associate AirDivision Director at (520) 498-0118. Sincerely,

# :::i~ Acting Regional Administrator

cc: Christa Stewart, Environmental Director

2
Exhibit 32.1

              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63
                      OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

      In connection with the quarterly report of Simclar, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Barry J. Pardon,
President of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for
purpose of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to
the best of my knowledge:

            (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) 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 result of operations of the
Company.

      This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, "filed" with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.



                                        /s/ Barry J. Pardon
                                    --------------------------
                                    Barry J. Pardon, President
                                    Simclar, Inc.
                                    May 16, 2005
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-23-00253-CR

MARK LOPEZ

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

105th District Court of Kleberg County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 21-CRF-0394

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 4, 2024
PGI 16.504 Indefinite-quantity contracts.

(a)(1)(S-90) Establishing guaranteed minimum quantities and recording obligations.

(B) Monthly review and reporting. Procuring organizations shall access Guaranteed Minimum

(https://dlamil.dps.mil/sites/Acquisition/Shared%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx?viewid=e9b411

26%2Dd28f%2D4f87%2Da9f7%2Dddf914a82406&id=%2Fsites%2FAcquisition%2FShared%20Docu

ments%2FGuaranteed%20Minimum); and

(i) Use instructions to query guaranteed minimums in ECC and SRM; and

(ii) Complete the Procuring Org Monthly Reporting Template and submit to the DLA Acquisition

Procurement Process & Systems Division on a monthly basis (by the 10th of the month for the

preceding month).

Parent topic: PGI SUBPART 16.5 – INDEFINITE-DELIVERY CONTRACTS
#### § 993.101 Order.

*Order* means Marketing Agreement No. 110, as amended, and Order No. 993, as amended (§§ 993.1 through 993.97), regulating the handling of dried prunes produced in California, or as they may be further amended hereafter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet dated June 30, 1998 and its
Consolidated Statement of Operations covering the period from October 1,
1997 to June 30, 1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statement and notes thereof.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                           51820
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    47810
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    6719713
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         2748583
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1639580
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8751381
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        1200327
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          5918
<OTHER-SE>                                     7187062
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8751381
<SALES>                                        2097409
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2097409
<CGS>                                           812398
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   812398
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1212855
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              100584
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  94008
<INCOME-TAX>                                       487
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              93521
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     93521
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-27-1999
<CASH>                                         10,863
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,758
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               13,621
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 13,621
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          16,349
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,728)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   13,621
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (260)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
§ 16.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part provides procedures for the collection by administrative offset of a Federal employee's salary without his/her consent to satisfy certain debts owed to the Federal Government. This part applies to all Federal employees who owe debts to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and to current employees of the NRC who owe debts to other Federal agencies. This part does not apply when the employee consents to recovery from his/her current pay account.
( b ) These procedures do not apply to debts or claims arising under: ( 1 ) The Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, 26 U.S.C. 1 *et seq.;*
( 2 ) The tariff laws of the United States; or
( 3 ) Any case where a collection of a debt by salary offset is explicitly provided for or prohibited by another statute.
( c ) These procedures do not apply to any adjustment to pay arising out of an employee's selection of coverage or a change in coverage under a Federal benefits program requiring periodic deductions from pay if the amount to be recovered was accumulated over four pay periods or less.
( d ) These procedures do not preclude the compromise, suspension, or termination of collection action where appropriate under the standards implementing the revised Federal Claims Collection Standards (FCCS), 31 U.S.C. 3711 *et seq.,* 31 CFR chapter IX, parts 900 through 904.
( e ) This part does not preclude an employee from requesting waiver of an overpayment under 5 U.S.C. 5584, 10 U.S.C. 2774, or 32 U.S.C. 716 or in any way questioning the amount or validity of the debt by submitting a subsequent claim to the NRC. This part does not preclude an employee from requesting a waiver pursuant to other statutory provisions applicable to the particular debt being collected.
( f ) The NRC is not limited to collection remedies contained in the revised FCCS. The FCCS is not intended to impair common law remedies.
[56 FR 51830, Oct. 16, 1991, as amended at 63 FR 15743, Apr. 1, 1998; 67 FR 57507, Sept. 11, 2002]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 6294** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. CHRISTOPHER DAMON SPENCER, a/k/a Dog , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Rebecca Beach Smith , Chief District Judge. ( 2:11

- cr - 00030

- RBS

- FBS

- 1; 2:12

- cv - 00447

- RBS )

Submitted : June 2 3 , 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016

Before MOTZ , K ING , and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Christopher Damon Spencer, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bindi ng precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Christopher Damon Spencer seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court ’ s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ( 2012 ) motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “ a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutio nal right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Spencer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument be cause the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
I. STATUTORY BASIS FOR THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION

The Joint Committee is established under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.(1) The Joint

Committee is composed of 10 Members: 5 Members from the Senate Committee on Finance (3

majority and 2 minority) and 5 Members from the House Committee on Ways and Means (3

majority and 2 minority).

The statutorily prescribed duties of the Joint Committee are to: (1) investigate the operation and

effects of internal revenue taxes and the administration of such taxes; (2) investigate measures and

methods for the simplification of such taxes; (3) make reports to the House Committee on Ways and

Means and the Senate Committee on Finance (or to the House and the Senate) on the results of such

investigations and studies and to make recommendations;(2) and (4) review any proposed refund or

credit of income or estate and gift taxes or certain other taxes set forth in Code section 6405 in

excess of $2,000,000.(3)

Under Code section 8021, the Joint Committee is empowered to: (1) obtain and inspect tax returns

and return information (as specified in sec. 6103(f)); (2) hold hearings, require attendance of

witnesses and production of books, administer oaths, and take testimony; (3) procure printing and

binding; and (4) make necessary expenditures. In addition, section 8023 authorizes the Joint

Committee (or the Chief of Staff), upon approval of the Chairman or Vice-Chairman, to secure tax

returns, tax return information or data directly from the Internal Revenue Service or any other

executive agency for the purpose of making investigations, reports, and studies relating to internal

revenue tax matters, including investigations of the Internal Revenue Service's administration of the

tax laws.

In addition to these functions that are specified in the Internal Revenue Code, the Congressional

Budget Act of 1974(4) requires the Joint Committee to provide revenue estimates for all tax

legislation considered by either the House or the Senate. Such estimates are the official

Congressional estimates for reported tax legislation.(5)

1. Sections 8001-8005 and 8021-8023 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and predecessor

sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and preceding

Revenue Acts back to the Revenue Act of 1926. These legislatively prescribed duties are essentially

unchanged since the Revenue Act of 1926.

2. Section 8022 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

3. Section 6405 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

4. Section 201(g), as amended by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985

(Gramm-Rudman-Hollings), P.L. 99-177, 99 Stat. 1037.

5. Id.

Return to Home Page

Return to Main Table of Contents

Return to History Table of Contents

Part I - Joint Committee History & Background Page 1 of 1

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps78154/stathist.htm 07/22/11
#### § 209.31 Purpose and scope.

This subpart establishes the standards and procedures by which persons engaged in the business of producing, transporting, refining, distributing, or storing petroleum products shall carry out voluntary agreements and develop and carry out plans of action which are required to implement the allocation and information provisions of the International Energy Program.
Subpart 803.1 [Reserved]

Parent topic: PART 803 - IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST