alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued November 13, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00581-CV

———————————

PATRICIA ANN WESTERN, Appellant

V.

LAKEISHA RANDLE, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 1111351

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Patricia Ann Western, has failed to timely file a brief. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant 

to file brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant 

did not adequately respond. See id. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case).
2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See id. 38.8(a), 

42.3(b). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Massengale.
#### Lincoln G. Schmidt, Appellant, v. County of Suffolk et al., Respondents.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR to compel respondents to audit and pay legal expenses incurred by petitioner in successfully defending against a prior proceeding -brought .by this court to remove him as President Judge of the District Court of Suffolk .County, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered November 5, 1969, which dismissed the petition. Judgment affirmed, with costs. A Judge of the District Court of Suffolk County is subject to removal proceedings pursuant to article VI (§ 22, subd. i) of the Constitution of New York; section 132 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and subdivision (e) of section 103 of the Uniform District Court Act. Section 410 of the County Law does not direct a charge against the county for the reasonable costs and expenses of a successful defense by a Judge of a District Court in a removal proceeding. Christ, P. J., Hopkins, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur. (Beldock, P. J., deceased.)
Honorable Forrester Hancock 

Criminal District Attorney 

Waxahachie, Texas 

Dear Sir: Attentton: Honorable F.L. Wilson, 

Assistant. 

Opinion No, O-3703 

Re: Can a county commissioners who 

takes road bond money voted in 

one road district and spends it 

in another road district be successfully prosecuted under Art. 

94, P. C,? 

In your letter of June 12, 1941, you request the ~opinlon 

of this department upon the above stated question. We quote 

the following statement taken from your letter, material to the 

above question: 

"The facts are that a certain count commissioner fs alleged to have taken about $ 2000 .oo 

of bond money, voted and belonging to Road District X, and expended it in Road District Y. The 

people of Road District Y are very much displeased 

and some of them desire to brfng the matter before the Grand Jury. The money can not be repaid, 

it seems.” 

Article 94 of Vernon's Annotated Penal Code provides: 

"Whoever shall wllfullg borrow, withhold or in 

any manner divert from its purpose, any special 

fund, or any part thereof, belonging to or under 

the control of the State, which has been set apart 

by law for a specific use, shall be confined in 

the penitentiary not less than two nor more than 

ten gears." 

The foregolng penal provision expressly relates to the 

diversion of any part of OP the whole of any special fund "belonging to or under the con,trol of tty State, which has been 

set apart by law for a specific use, This article has been 

brought down from the Penal Code of Texas, 1911, In substantlal- 
Honorable Forrester Hancock, page 2 O-3703 

lg the same language as when originally adopted. It seems clear 

that the article only relates to State funds, under the direct 

control of the Legislature for State purposes. We find no case 

applying or construing this provision of OUP criminal laws. 

Our attention fs called however by 'the publishers of the 1911 

Penal Code of Texas, totArtIcle gl Sec. 7 of the Constitution 

of Texas and upon viewing this provision of our Constitution 

brought forward from that adopted in 1876, it is evldent that 

the article was enacted by the Legislature in pursuance to this 

constitutional mandate for the purpose of better safe-guarding 

special funds which may or ought to come into the Tree%-tiy of 

the State. 

Funds derived from the sale of road dlstrLct bonds do 

not constitute funds belonging to OP under the control of the 

State. 

It is therefore the opinion of this department that 

Article 94 of Vernon's Annotated Penal Code has no application 

to a dlversion of funds derlved from the sale of road district 

bonds under the control of the counties, 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By s/trm. J,R, King 

Wm. J.R, King 

Assistant 

WJRK:RS:wc 

APPROVXD JUL 7, 1941 

s/Grover Sellers 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Approved Opinion Committee By s/&U3 Chairman
§ 501.33 Request for a public hearing. ( a ) *New facilities.* In the case of a petition for an exemption under title II of FUA, any interested person may submit a written request that OFE convene a public hearing in accordance with section 701 of FUA no later than forty-five (45) days after publication of either the Notice of Acceptance of a petition, or in the case of a certification exemption, the publication of the Notice of Acceptance of Certification. This time period may be extended at the discretion of OFE.
( b ) *Existing powerplants.* In the case of a petition for an exemption from a prohibition imposed by a final rule or order issued by OFE to an electing powerplant under former sections of title III of FUA or a petition for a permit under § 504.1, any interested person may submit a written request that OFE convene a public hearing in accordance with section 701 of FUA within 45 days after the notice of the filing of a petition is published in the Federal Register. In the case of a proposed prohibition rule or order issued to an electing powerplant under former section 301, the 45 day period in which to request a public hearing shall commence upon the publication of the Notice of Availability of the Tentative Staff Analysis. In the case of a proposed prohibition order to be issued to certifying powerplants under section 301 of FUA, as amended, the 45 day period in which to request a public hearing commences upon publication of the Notice of Acceptance of Certification. This time limit may be extended at the discretion of OFE in accordance with § 501.7.
( c ) *Contents of request.* A request for a public hearing must be in writing and must include a description of the requesting party's interest in the proceeding and a statement of the issues involved. The request should, to the extent possible, identify any witnesses that are to be called, summarize the anticipated testimony to be given at the hearing, and outline questions that are to be posed.
(Department of Energy Organization Act, Pub. L. 95-91, 91 Stat. 565 (42 U.S.C. 7101 *et seq.*); Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-620, 92 Stat. 3269 (42 U.S.C. 8301 *et seq.*); Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Pub. L. 97-35); E.O. 12009, 42 FR 46267, Sept. 15, 1977)
[46 FR 59889, Dec. 7, 1981, as amended at 47 FR 50848, Nov. 10, 1982; 54 FR 52892, Dec. 22, 1989]
Subpart 4.22 Prohibition on a ByteDance Covered Application.    **Parent topic:** Part 4 - Administrative and Information Matters4.2201 Definitions.       As used in this subpart—          *Covered application* means the social networking service TikTok or any successor application or service developed or provided by ByteDance Limited or an entity owned by ByteDance Limited.          *Information technology*, as defined in 40 U.S.C. 11101(6)—(1)Means any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment, used in the automatic acquisition, storage, analysis, evaluation, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information by the executive agency, if the equipment is used by the executive agency directly or is used by a contractor under a contract with the executive agency that requires the use—                                                                                    (i)Of that equipment; or                                                                                       (ii)Of that equipment to a significant extent in the performance of a service or the furnishing of a product;                                                                                                                          (2)Includes computers, ancillary equipment (including imaging peripherals, input, output, and storage devices necessary for security and surveillance), peripheral equipment designed to be controlled by the central processing unit of a computer, software, firmware and similar procedures, services (including support services), and related resources; but                                                                     (3)Does not include any equipment acquired by a Federal contractor incidental to a Federal contract.4.2202 Prohibition.       (a) Section 102 of Division R of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328), the No TikTok on Government Devices Act, and its implementing guidance under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M-23-13, dated February 27, 2023, “No TikTok on Government Devices” Implementation Guidance, collectively prohibit the presence or use of a covered application on information technology, including certain equipment used by Federal contractors.                                          (b) This prohibition applies to the presence or use of a covered application on any information technology owned or managed by the Government, or on any information technology used or provided by the contractor under a contract, including equipment provided by the contractor’s employees, unless an exception is granted in accordance with OMB Memorandum M-23-13.4.2203 Contract clause.       The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 52.204-27, Prohibition on a ByteDance Covered Application, in all solicitations and contracts, unless an exception is granted in accordance with OMB Memorandum M-23-13.
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
             Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
                    ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Quarterly Report of SEDONA Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ending August 31, 2002 (the "Report"), I, William K. Williams, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/William K. Williams
------------------------------------------
William K. Williams
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

November 14, 2002
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 18, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40186

c/w Nos. 03-40187 & 03-40496

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NOE MENDOZA-BARCENAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-02-CR-611-1

--------------------

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, EMILIO M. GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Noe Mendoza-Barcenas appeals his guilty-plea conviction

for illegal reentry into the United States after deportation and

the revocation of his supervised release and probation. He

asserts that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(1) and (2) are unconstitutional

on their face and as applied to him. He also argues that the

prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an
Nos. 03-40186 c/w 03-40496 & 03-40187

-2-

element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in the indictment.

Because a challenge under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S.

466 (2000) is not jurisdictional, Mendoza-Barcenas may not

present these claims in an appeal following the revocation of

supervised release. See United States v. Longoria, 298 F.3d 367,

372 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc); United States v. Moody, 277 F.3d

719, 720-21 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Teran, 98 F.3d 831,

833 n.1 (5th Cir. 1996). Regardless, Mendoza-Barcenas

acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 226-27 (1998), but he

seeks to preserve the issue for Supreme Court review. Apprendi

did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 489-

90, 496. This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and

until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” 

United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 558 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 558

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     November 17, 2005.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the joint 
resolution (H.J. Res. 72) making further continuing appropriations for the 
fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be 
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to 
recommit.
    Sec. 2. House Resolution 542 is laid on the table.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Subpart 5301.1 - PURPOSE, AUTHORITY, AND ISSUANCE    **Parent topic:** Part 5301 - Federal Acquisition Regulations System5301.101  Purpose       The Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) establishes uniform policies and procedures for the Department of the Air Force (DAF) implementing and supplementing the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), the Department of Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS), and other Department of Defense publications concerning contracting. DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) are companion resources arranged by parts, which correspond to the relevant FAR parts. Supplements to the DAFFARS and MPs are prohibited.5301.104 Applicability       The DAFFARS applies to all DAF acquisitions as they are defined in part 2 of the FAR, except where expressly excluded.5301.105-1 Publication and Code Arrangement       (a)(S-90) The DAFFARS is published on www.Acquisition.gov.5301.170 Peer Reviews       (a) *DPC Peer Reviews.*         (2) To facilitate planning for and execution of DoD Peer Reviews (see DFARS 201.170 for applicable competitive and noncompetitive thresholds), the SCO must use the Peer Review and Clearance Forecasting Tool to submit quarterly peer review forecasts by the 15th of March, June, September, and December each year. SAF/AQC will submit a consolidated forecast to DPC on behalf of the DAF at the end of each quarter. When DoD Peer Review is required, follow the procedures in MP5301.9001(a)(1)(i)(A)(2)(g), MP5301.9001(i)(2)(vi)(A)*(1)(c)*, or MP5301.9001(i)(2)(vi) as appropriate, regarding clearance.         (b) Component Peer Reviews. Pre-award peer reviews of solicitations for competitive procurements and pre-award peer reviews for non-competitive procurements not subject to the requirements of DFARS 201.170(a)(1)(i) or (ii) must be accomplished by complying with the clearance requirements in DAFFARS 5301.90.
Case 2:06-cv-00754-WC Document 9 Filed 11/01/2006 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00754-WC Document 9 Filed 11/01/2006 Page 2 of 2
§ 600.318 Fee and profit. ( a ) Grants and cooperative agreements may not provide for the payment of fee or profit to recipients or subrecipients, except for awards made pursuant to the Small Business Innovation Research or Small Business Technology Transfer Research programs.
( b ) A recipient or subrecipient may pay a fee or profit to a contractor providing goods or services under a contract.
Property Standards
EXHIBIT 32  CERTIFICATION  I, Leslie J. Kessler, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of PureSafe Water Systems, Inc. (the Registrant), hereby certify that the Form 10-Q of PureSafe Water Systems, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2014 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.   Date:  March 4, 2015/s/ Leslie J. KesslerLeslie J. KesslerChief Executive Officer and
Principal Financial Officer
H. Res. 51

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

January 26, 2005.

Resolved, That in clause 11(a)(1) of rule X—

(a) strike ‘‘18’’ and insert ‘‘21’’; and

(b) strike ‘‘10’’ and insert ‘‘12’’.

Attest:

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 553 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 553

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     November 16, 2005.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 1065) to establish the United States Boxing Commission to protect the 
general welfare of boxers and to ensure fairness in the sport of professional 
boxing. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour, with 40 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled 
by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 
After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on Energy 
and Commerce and the Judiciary now printed in the bill, it shall be in order to 
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute 
rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the report 
of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That amendment in the 
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. Notwithstanding clause 
11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
shall be in order except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
on Rules. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, 
may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in 
the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or 
to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
§ 490.607 Appeals. ( a ) In order to exhaust administrative remedies, on or before 30 days from the date of issuance of a proposed assessment and order to pay, a person must appeal a proposed assessment and order to the Office of Hearings and Appeals, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
( b ) Proceedings in the Office of Hearings and Appeals shall be subject to subpart F of 10 CFR part 1003 except that— ( 1 ) Appellant shall have the ultimate burden of persuasion;
( 2 ) Appellant shall have right to a trial-type hearing on contested issues of fact only if the hearing officer concludes that cross examination will materially assist in determining facts in addition to evidence available in documentary form; and
( 3 ) The Office of Hearings and Appeals may issue such orders as it may deem appropriate on all other procedural matters.
( c ) The determination of the Office of Hearings and Appeals shall be final for DOE.
Subpart 3007.1—Acquisition Plans

Parent topic: PART 3007—ACQUISITION PLANNING

3007.106 Additional Requirements for Major Systems.

3007.106-70 Limitations on Lead System Integrators.

See (HSAR) 48 CFR 3009.570 for policy applicable to acquisition strategies that consider the use of

lead system integrators.
```

[106th Congress Public Law 270]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ270.106]

Public Law 106-270
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To reauthorize the participation of the Bureau of Reclamation in the 
 Deschutes Resources Conservancy, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: Sept. 
                        22, 2000 -  [S. 1027]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Deschutes Resources 
Conservancy Reauthorization Act of 2000.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Deschutes Resources Conservancy 
Reauthorization Act of 2000''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PARTICIPATION OF BUREAU OF RECLAMATION IN 
                    DESCHUTES RESOURCES CONSERVANCY.

    Section 301 of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 
(division B of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-534) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (b)(3), by inserting before the period at 
        the end the following: ``, and up to a total amount of 
        $2,000,000 during each of fiscal years 2002 through 2006''; and
            (2) in subsection (h), by inserting before the period at the 
        end the following: ``and $2,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
        2002 through 2006''.

    Approved September 22, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1027 (H.R. 1787):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: Nos. 106-712 accompanying H.R. 1787 and 106-805 (both 
from Comm. on Resources).
SENATE REPORTS: No. 106-96 (Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
                                                        Vol. 145 (1999):
                                    July 1, considered and passed 
                                        Senate.
                                                        Vol. 146 (2000):
                                    Sept. 12, considered and passed 
                                        House.

                                  <all>
```