alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Alejandro Hernandez and The Freedom

Indeed Foundation, Inc.

,

Appellant

,

v.

Constable R.A. Sommers Precint #7

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 8

- 00045

- C V

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 7

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2017DCV0816 )

O R D E R

On June 13, 2018, the Court issued an order for the trial court to conduct a hearing on the

court reporter’s challenge to Appellants statement of inability to afford to pay costs on appeal. The

hearing is scheduled for June 28, 2018. Appellants have filed a motion to cancel the hearing

because they have determined the reporter’s record is not necessary for the appeal and they have

withdrawn their request for the court reporter to prepare the reporter’s record. The motion is

GRANTED. The trial court is not required to conduct the hearing and the court reporter is not

required to file the reporter’s record previously requested by Appellants. Appellants’ brief is due

to be filed no later than July 27, 2018.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 27 th day of June

, 20 1 8

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
#### § 800.004 Eligibility.

In order to be eligible for a loan, an applicant must be a minority business enterprise as defined in § 800.003.
Opinion issued August 29 , 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 18 - 01120 - CV

——————————— GARY D. PENTECOST , Appella nt

V. U - HAUL CO . OF TEXAS , Appell e e On Appeal from the 11th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 2017 - 74757
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Gary D. Pentecost, has neither established indigence nor paid, or made arrangements to pay, the fee for preparing the clerk’s record. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 37.3(b). On March 8, 2019, appellant was notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal
. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 37.3(b), 42.3(b). A ppellant did not respond
.2

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Goodman , and Landau.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 423 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 423

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                     September 7, 2005.
Whereas William H. Rehnquist was born on October 1, 1924, in Milwaukee, 
        Wisconsin and grew up the son of a paper salesman;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist served the United States in the Army Air Corps 
        during World War II;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist attended and graduated from Stanford University, 
        earning a bachelor's and master's degree in political science, and a 
        second master's degree in government from Harvard University;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist went on to graduate first in his class at Stanford 
        Law School in 1952, where he met his wife Natalie ``Nan'' Cornell;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist and Natalie had three children: James, Janet, and 
        Nancy;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist served as a law clerk to Justice Robert H. Jackson 
        on the Supreme Court during the 1951 and 1952 terms, and as Assistant 
        Attorney General for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, 
        where he advised the Nixon Administration on constitutional law from 
        1969 until 1971;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist was appointed by President Nixon and confirmed by 
        the Senate as an Associate Justice of the United States on December 10, 
        1971, at the age of 47;
Whereas William H. Rehnquist was appointed by President Reagan and confirmed by 
        the Senate as the 16th Chief Justice of the United States in 1986;
Whereas Chief Justice Rehnquist's 33-year tenure on the Supreme Court was one of 
        the longest and most influential in the Nation's history;
Whereas legal scholars of all perspectives rank Chief Justice Rehnquist as among 
        the great Chief Justices of the United States who influenced the 
        interpretation of the law in significant ways;
Whereas Chief Justice Rehnquist was widely respected for his evenhandedness as 
        Chief Justice; and
Whereas on January 7, 2002, the 30th Anniversary of his swearing in at the 
        Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens praised Chief Justice Rehnquist 
        for ``the efficiency, good humor and absolute impartiality that you have 
        consistently displayed when presiding at our Conferences'': Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) has learned with profound sorrow of the death of Chief Justice 
        Rehnquist; and
            (2) honors, recognizes, and expresses gratitude for the 
        distinguished service, career, and achievements of William H. Rehnquist 
        upon his death.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 4, 2017

No. 04-17-00237-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF G.S., A CHILD,

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-PA-00112

Honorable Barbara Hanson Nellermoe, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant attempts to appeal from a final order terminating her parental rights. An appeal 

from such an order is accelerated. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 263.405(a). The trial court signed 

the order of termination on February 28, 2017. Because this is an accelerated appeal, the notice 

of appeal was due on March 20, 2017. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(b); In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 

923, 928 (Tex. 2005). Although appellant filed a timely motion for new trial, this motion does 

not extend the appellate deadline. In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d at 928. 

It is therefore ORDERED that appellant show cause in writing within fifteen days from 

the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 26.1(b); In re K.A.F., 160 S.W.3d 923, 928 (Tex. 2005). If appellant fails to respond 

within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). 

All other appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of this court.

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 4th day of May, 2017.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
§ 600.13 Merit review. ( a ) It is the policy of DOE that discretionary financial assistance be awarded through a merit-based selection process. A merit review means a thorough, consistent, and objective examination of applications based on pre-established criteria by persons who are independent of those submitting the applications and who are knowledgeable in the field of endeavor for which support is requested.
( b ) Each program office must establish a merit review system covering the financial assistance programs it administers. Merit review of financial assistance applications is intended to be advisory and is not intended to replace the authority of the project/program official with responsibility for deciding whether an award will be made.
[64 FR 56420, Oct. 20, 1999]
§ 600.223 Period of availability of funds. ( a ) *General.* Where a funding period is specified, a grantee may charge to the award only costs resulting from obligations of the funding period unless carryover of unobligated balances is permitted, in which case the carryover balances may be charged for costs resulting from obligations of the subsequent funding period.
( b ) *Liquidation of obligations.* A grantee must liquidate all obligations incurred under the award not later than 90 days after the end of the funding period (or as specified in a program regulation) to coincide with the submission of the annual Financial Status Report (SF-269). The Federal agency may extend this deadline at the request of the grantee.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7308

RAHEEM JABBAR HUNT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DAVID ROBINSON, Warden, Nottoway Correctional

Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior

District Judge. (CA-01-802-3)

Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 15, 2002

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Clay Chrisman, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert

H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,

Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Raheem Jabbar Hunt seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a

habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of

arises out of process issued by a state court unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

for claims addressed by a district court on the merits absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). As to claims dismissed by a district

court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability

will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1)

‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the

petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional

right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’”

Rose v. Lee, 252 F. 3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have reviewed the record

and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Hunt

has not satisfied either standard. See Hunt v. Robinson, No. CA-01-

802-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 6, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Subpart 852.1 - Instructions for Using Provisions and Clauses    **Parent topic:** PART 852 - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES852.101-70 Using part 852.       Part 852 prescribes supplemental provisions and clauses to the FAR. Provision and clause numbering are as prescribed in FAR 52.101 (e.g., supplementary construction clauses under part 836 are numbered 852.236-71, 852.236-72, etc.).852.102 Incorporating provisions and clauses.       (a) As authorized by FAR 52.102(c), any 48 CFR chapter 8 (VAAR) provision or clause may be incorporated in a quotation, solicitation, or contract by reference, provided the contracting officer complies with the requirements stated in FAR 52.102(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3). To ensure compliance with FAR 52.102(c)          (1)  			and (c)(2), contracting officers shall insert the provision found at 852.252-70, Solicitation provisions or clauses incorporated by reference, in full text in a quotation, solicitation, or contract if the quotation, solicitation, or contract incorporates by reference a FAR or 48 CFR chapter 8 (VAAR) provision or clause that requires completion by the offeror or prospective contractor and submittal with the quotation or offer.          (b) For any FAR or 48 CFR chapter 8 (VAAR) provision or clause that requires completion by the contracting officer, the contracting officer shall, as a minimum, insert the title of the provision or clause and the paragraph that requires completion in full text in the quotation, solicitation, or contract. The balance of the provision or clause may be incorporated by reference.          (c) When one or more FAR or 48 CFR chapter 8 (VAAR) provisions, or portions thereof, are incorporated in a quotation or solicitation by reference, the contracting officer shall insert in the quotation or solicitation the provision found at FAR 52.252-1, Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference.          (d) When one or more FAR or 48 CFR chapter 8 (VAAR) clauses, or portions thereof, are incorporated in a quotation, solicitation, or contract by reference, the contracting officer shall insert in the quotation, solicitation, or contract the clause found at FAR 52.252-2, Clauses Incorporated by Reference.          (e) If one or more FAR provisions or clauses, or portions thereof, are incorporated in a quotation, solicitation, or contract by reference, the contracting officer shall insert in the FAR provision or clause required by paragraph (c) or (d) of this section the following internet address: *https://www.acquisition.gov/browse/index/far.*          (f) If one or more 48 CFR chapter 8 (VAAR) provisions or clauses, or portions thereof, are incorporated in a quotation, solicitation, or contract by reference, the contracting officer shall insert in the FAR provision or clause required by paragraph (c) or (d) of this section the following internet address: *https://www.acquisition.gov/vaar.*
[No. 9668.

Department Two.

October 25, 1911.]

#### Pearce & Hendricks, *Respondent,*v. George M. Shreeder, *Appellant.**2*

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Pierce county, Easterday, J., entered December 30, 1910, upon findings in favor of the plaintiff, after a trial on the merits before the court without a jury, in an action on contract.

Affirmed.

*A. H. Garretson*and *Johnston & Swindells,*for appellant.

*Elias A. Wright,*for respondent.

2

 Reported in 118 Pac. 1118.

Per Curiam.

— The plaintiff, respondent here, brought his action against the three defendants, F. E. Valentine, George M. Shreeder, and E. C. Goodale, for a balance due of $355.90 with interest, for services rendered and material furnished as a machinist in working upon a certain model at the special instance and request of defendants. The defendant Valentine did not appear, and default was entered against him. The defendants Shreeder and Goodale appearing, denied all the material allegations alleged in the complaint. Trial was had to the court, and the court found that the material had been furnished and the work performed at the special instance and request of all of the defendants, and judgment was entered in accordance with said finding. Defendant Shreeder appeals.

There is no question of law raised in this case. We have examined the testimony, and think that the finding of the court was amply sustained by the testimony. The judgment is affirmed.
44 Canal Center Plaza ▪ Suite 310 ▪ Alexandria, Virginia 22314 ▪ Tel: (703) 684
-0084 ▪ Fax: (703) 684
-0427

**VIA E** **- MAIL**  May 9 , 2011
Ms. Madeline Barch Office of Policy Regulatory Management Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building, Mail Code: 1806A 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 RE: Request for Extension of Time

– S BAR Panel: Risk and Technology Review Dear Ms. Barch : The North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (“NAIMA”) appreciated the opportunity to meet with Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), Small Business Administration (“SBA”), and Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) representatives on April 27, 2011 to discuss the SBAR Panel Briefing: Risk and Technology Review for Mineral Wool Production. At that meeting, a response from NAIMA was targeted for May 11, 2011. In the interim, EPA has contacted NAIMA and requested additional information on formaldehyde binders and has also requested two plant visits. NAIMA has become directly involved in both requests, including participating in the plant visits in Huntington and Wabash, Indiana. Given the commitment of NAIMA to provide thorough and comprehensive information, NAIMA is requesting an additional ten days beyond the scheduled plants visits in Indiana on May 12, 2011 to provide NAIMA’s preliminary response to the questions raised during the SBAR presentation. This extension of time would facilitate the ongoing dialogue that has been both productive and cooperative. Sincerely, **Angus E. Crane** Angus E. Crane Executive Vice President, General Counsel
cc: Susan Fairchild David Rostker
§ 603.680 Purchase of real property and equipment by for-profit firms. ( a ) With the two exceptions described in paragraph (b) of this section, the contracting officer must require a for-profit firm to purchase real property or equipment with its own funds that are separate from the RD&D project. The contracting officer should allow the firm to charge to an expenditure-based TIA only depreciation or use charges for real property or equipment (and the cost estimate for a fixed-support TIA only would include those costs). Note that the firm must charge depreciation consistently with its usual accounting practice. Many firms treat depreciation as an indirect cost. Any firm that usually charges depreciation indirectly for a particular type of property must not charge depreciation for that property as a direct cost to the TIA.
( b ) In two situations, the contracting officer may grant an exception and allow a for-profit firm to use project funds, which includes both the Federal Government and recipient shares, to purchase real property or equipment (i.e., to charge to the project the full acquisition cost of the property). The two circumstances, which should be infrequent for equipment and extremely rare for real property, are those in which either: ( 1 ) The real property or equipment will be dedicated to the project and has a current fair market value that is less than $5,000 by the time the project ends; or
( 2 ) The contracting officer gives prior approval for the firm to include the full acquisition cost of the real property or equipment as part of the cost of the project (see § 603.535).
( c ) If the contracting officer grants an exception in either of the circumstances described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, the real property or equipment must be subject to the property management standards in 10 CFR 600.321(b) through (e). As provided in those standards, the title to the real property or equipment will vest conditionally in the for-profit firm upon acquisition. A TIA, whether it is a fixed-support or expenditure-based award, must specify that any item of equipment that has a fair market value of $5,000 or more at the conclusion of the project also will be subject to the disposition process in 10 CFR 600.321(f), whereby the Federal Government will recover its interest in the property at that time.
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 Quarterly Report of Archon Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), we, Paul W. Lowden, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and John M. Garner, 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
2003, that to our knowledge:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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





Date:    August 12, 2004



/s/ Paul W.
Lowden

---

Paul W. Lowden

Chairman of the Board and President

(Principal Executive Officer)



/s/ John M. Garner

---

John M. Garner

Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)





This certification accompanies the above described Report on Form 10-Q
pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by

such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
||
||
|  |
|   |
| ***MMPA                   Bulletin***
The *MMPA                        Bulletin* provided information to the public about NOAA                        Fisheries actions and policies under the MMPA.   The                        Office of Protected Resources (OPR) previously published                        this periodic newsletter                     but is currently exploring other avenues for disseminating                  this information to the public. In the meantime, please click                        on a link below to accesss past issues.
*Issues available:*2002                         Year End - Special Issue                        MMPA 30th Anniversary****4th                         Quarter 20002nd/3rd                         Quarter 2000  1st                         Quarter 20004th                         Quarter 19993rd                         Quarter 19992nd Quarter 19991st                         Quarter 19994th                         Quarter 19983rd                         Quarter 19982nd                         Quarter 19981st                         Quarter 1998September/October                         1996May/June                         1996January/February                         1996September/October                         1995June/July                         1995April/May                         1995February                         1995November                         1994September                         1994Contact                      Us | Related Links | Search | Regional                      Offices | Privacy                      Policy | Disclaimer | NOAA                    Fisheries, Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East West                    Highway, Silver Spring, MD  20910                 Fax:301-713-0376 Phone:301-713-2332 |
#### FREID v. DOYLE.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

July 10, 1914.)

Action by Harry Freid against David A. Doyle.

No opinion. Application denied, with $10 costs. Order signed.