alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

January 30, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-50745

Summary Calendar

DIONICIO A. CRUZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS PAROLE DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-02-CV-310

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

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Dionicio A. Cruz, a Texas p arolee, appeals the district

court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, wherein he

challenged the retroactive application of the State of Texas’ Super

Intensive Supervisio n Program (“SISP”) as a condition of his

parole. The district court granted Cruz a certificate of

appealability on the issue whether SISP violates the Ex Post Facto

Clause by subjecting Cruz to greater punishment on parole.

Cruz argues tha t: (1) he is entitled to the benefit of the2

parole laws in effect at the time of his conviction and subsequent

parole violation and (2) the retroactive application of SISP

constitutes a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause because the

SISP provisions are more onerous than the former parole laws. He

has also filed a motion for injunctive relief in this court.

Texas prisoners have no constitutional expectancy of parole.

See Madison v. Parker , 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997). Thus,

to the extent Cruz argues that he is entitled to the benefit of the

parole laws that were in effect at the time of his state conviction

and subsequent parole violation, he has not stated a violation of

a constitutional right. S ee Orellana v. Kyle

, 65 F.3d 29, 32 (5th

Cir. 1995).

To the extent that Cruz argues that SISP violates the Ex Post

Facto Clause by increasing the punishment for his offense, his

argument fails. The only SISP condition that Cruz specifically

challenges on appeal is the State’s use of electronic monitoring.

In Vineyard v. Keesee

, No. 95-10132 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 1995)

(unpublished), slip. op. at 3-5, this court held that changes in

Texas parole laws imposing electronic monitoring, urinalysis,

driving restrictions, and curfew did not constitute an ex post

facto violatio n. In light of V ineyard

, Cruz has not stated a

violation of a constitutional right. S ee 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5. 3

.

B ecause Cruz has failed to establish a violation of his

constitutional rights, he is not entitled to habeas relief. S ee

Orellana , 65 F.3d at 31.3

In his request for injunctive relief, Cruz seeks to enjoin the

State from impeding his access to the law library. In light of the

disposition of this case, Cruz cannot make the showing required for

obtaining an injunction because he cannot demonstrate a substantial

likelihood of success on the merits. See Lindsay v. City of San

Antonio , 821 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
January 13, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

THE CITY OF GALVESTO N, TEXAS , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00222

- CV V.
JOE MURPHY, YORAM BE N

- AMRAM
, AND GALTEX DEVELOPMENT, LLC , Appellee s

________________________________ This cause, an interlocutory appeal from the order denying appellant City of Galveston’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject

- matter jurisdiction, in favor of appellee s , Joe Murphy, Yora m Ben

- Amram
, and Galtex Development, LLC, signed February 28, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find the trial court erred in failing to grant the motion in part

. We therefore order that the order that deni ed the City’s motion to dismiss with regard to appellees’ takings claims based on the City’s denial of appellees’ Special Use Permit is REVERSED in part and RENDER judgment dismissing such claims.
Further, we order that the order is AFFIRMED in part wit h regard to appellees’ takings claims based on the City’s revocation of the property at issue’s grandfathered non

- conforming status

. We order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### A & J Concrete Corp. et al., Respondents, v Allan Arker et al., Appellants.

Appeal by defendants from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 8, 1979, which, *inter alia,*granted plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time within which to serve 'their complaint. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. This is an action by judgment creditors of certain corporations to recover against the principals of those corporations for transfers of corporate assets made without consideration and with the intent to fraudulently defeat collection of the judgments. Summonses were served upon both defendants in early or mid January, 1979, and on January 29, 1979 an attorney served by mail an appearance and a demand for service of a complaint on behalf of both defendants. Service of the complaint was thus due on or before February 21, 1979 (see CPLR 2103, subd [b]; 3012, subd [b]; General Construction Law, § 20). The complaint was not timely served, and on March 1, 1979 defendants’ attorney wrote to plaintiffs’ counsel demanding a copy of the complaint by return mail and stating that if the complaint were not so forwarded, he would move to dismiss. This letter, extending plaintiffs’ time to serve the complaint, was received by their attorney on March 3, 1979. The complaint was forwarded by mail to defendants’ attorney three days later on March 6, 1979. Defendants’ counsel rejected the complaint and
#### HAMMITT, Appellant, v. GAYNOR, Mayor, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 20. 1914.)

Action by Joseph 0. Hammitt against William J. Gaynor, Mayor, etc. W. E. Youker, of New York City, for appellant. E. C. Kindleberger, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment (82 Misc. Rep. 196, 144 N. Y. Supp. 127) affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 593 

Directing the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary 

of Homeland Security, and the Attorney General, and requesting the 

President, to provide certain information to the House of Representatives 

relating to extraordinary rendition of certain foreign persons. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2005 

Mr. MARKEY submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on International Relations 

RESOLUTION 

Directing the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, 

the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Attorney 

General, and requesting the President, to provide certain 

information to the House of Representatives relating to 

extraordinary rendition of certain foreign persons. 

1 Resolved, That the Secretary of State, the Secretary 

2 of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the 

3 Attorney General are directed, and the President is re4 quested, to provide to the House of Representatives, not 

5 later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this 

6 resolution, all documents and records in their possession 

7 relating to the rendition, transfer, or return to a foreign 
2 

•HRES 593 IH 

1 country of any foreign person who has been imprisoned, 

2 detained, or held for transfer to another country by, or 

3 has otherwise been in the custody of, a department, agen4 cy, or official of the United States Government, or any 

5 contractor of any such department or agency. 

Æ
#### § 719.40 What effect do the regulations of this part have on cost allowability?

Contractor and retained legal counsel compliance with this part is a prerequisite for allowability of legal costs. However, compliance with this part does not guarantee that legal costs will be determined to be allowable. Only the contracting officer has the authority to determine allowability of costs in accordance with 48 CFR (FAR) part 31 and (DEAR) part 931 and all other applicable contract terms and conditions.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 26, 2010

p0519 

# Order

May 26, 2010

140008

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140008 COA: 291953 Wayne CC: 05-001277-01 REGINALD JEROME RIGGINS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the September 24, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
###### Editorial Note on Part 4

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4 appear at 77 FR 39904, July 6, 2012.

#### § 4.22 Continuing Federal financial assistance.

Every application by a State or a State agency for continuing Federal financial assistance shall require the submission of and every grant, loan, or contract to or with a State or a State agency for continuing Federal financial assistance to which this subpart applies, shall, as a condition to its approval and the extension of any Federal financial assistance pursuant to the grant, loan or contract, contain or be accompanied by, a statement that the program is (or, in the case of a new program, will be) conducted in compliance with all requirements imposed by or pursuant to this subpart, and shall provide or be accompanied by provisions for such methods of administration for the program as are found by the responsible NRC official to give reasonable assurance that the recipient and all other recipients of Federal financial assistance under such program will comply with all requirements imposed by or pursuant to this subpart.

[38 FR 17928, July 5, 1973, as amended at 68 FR 51344, Aug. 26, 2003]
§ 904.8 Lower basin development fund contribution charge. ( a ) The Lower Basin Development Fund Contribution Charge will be developed by the Administrator of Western on the basis that the equivalent of 41 ⁄ 2 mills or 21 ⁄ 2 mills per kWh, as appropriate, required to be included in the rates charged to purchasers pursuant to section 1543(c)(2) of the Basin Act, as amended by the Hoover Power Plant Act, shall be collected from the energy sales of the Project.
( b ) The Lower Basin Development Fund Contribution Charge shall be applied to each kWh made available to each Contractor, as provided for by Contract, except for the energy purchased by Western at the request of a Contractor to meet: ( 1 ) That Contractor's deficiency in Firm Energy, pursuant to section 105(a)(2) of the Hoover Power Plant Act (43 U.S.C. 619(a)(2)) and section F of the Conformed Criteria; and
( 2 ) That Contractor's Uprating Program credit carry forward as provided by Contract. A 41 ⁄ 2 mills per kWh charge shall be applied to each kWh made available to an Arizona Contractor, and a 21 ⁄ 2 mills per kWh charge shall be applied to each kWh made available to a California or Nevada Contractor; provided, that after the repayment period of the Central Arizona Project, a 21 ⁄ 2 mills per kWh charge shall be applied to each kWh made available to the Arizona, California, and Nevada Contractors. The Lower Basin Development Fund Contribution Charge shall be applied to energy overruns. The Lower Basin Development Fund Contribution Charge shall be applied each billing period for each Contractor.
#### § 73.40 Physical protection: General requirements at fixed sites.

Each licensee shall provide physical protection at a fixed site, or contiguous sites where licensed activities are conducted, against radiological sabotage, or against theft of special nuclear material, or against both, in accordance with the applicable sections of this Part for each specific class of facility or material license. If applicable, the licensee shall establish and maintain physical security in accordance with security plans approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

[58 FR 13700, Mar. 15, 1993]
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

          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 Greyhound Lines, Inc. and
Subsidiaries (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), the undersigned President and Chief Executive Officer and Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to the best of their 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.

 /s/ Craig R. Lentzsch
-------------------------------
Craig R.Lentzsch, President and Chief Executive Officer
November 14, 2002

/s/ Jeffrey W. Sanders
------------------------------
Jeffrey W. Sanders, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

MARY ALEXANDER, 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D23-199 

LT Case No. 22-CC-196 

TERRY L. ROBERTS, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/

Decision filed April 25, 2023

Appeal from the County Court 

for Nassau County, 

Robert M. Foster, Judge.

Mary Alexander, Jacksonville, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

EDWARDS, HARRIS and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.
CC Filed by Filing Services Canada Inc. 403-717-3898


Premium Petroleum Inc.

1610, 736 – 6th Avenue SW

Calgary, Alberta T2P 3T7




Voice:  604-836-2292  Fax:  775-243-9320

bruce@thomson.org







May 24, 2006

via e-mail: info@micronenviro.com

Micron Enviro Systems Inc.

1205 - 789 West Pender Street

Vancouver BC  V6C 1H2




Attention:  Bernie McDougall, President 




Dear Sir:




Re: Acquisition of Oil Sands Lease, N1⁄2 15  61-11 W4M




The purpose of this letter is to advise that Premium Petroleum Inc. has acquired an Oil Sands Lease over the captioned lands. The lease was acquired in order to test and if successful, produce oil from the oil sands interval in the joint well at 15-11-61-11 W4M. The cost of acquiring this lease is $280,212.84.




These lands fall within our Area of Mutual interest as set forth in Clause 8 of our agreement of February 6, 2006 (the “Farmout Agreement”).




Your share of the costs of this acquisition amounts to $8,406.39 ($280,212.84 x 3%).




In accordance with clause 8.04 of the Farmout and Royalty Procedure attached as Schedule “B” to the Farmout Agreement you have seven (7) days from receipt of this letter to elect to participate in the acquisition of these mineral rights and if you so elect, a further seven (7) days to pay your share of the cash consideration for the acquisition.




Kindly indicate your election by completing the selection area as set forth below and returning the duplicate copy of this letter to the undersigned within the time frame as herein specified. Be advised that if you elect to participate but do not pay your share of the cash consideration within the time frame as herein specified, your election to participate will be voided and you will have no rights to the Oil Sands Lease herein offered. 




Yours very truly,

Premium Petroleum Inc.







Per: /s/ Bruce A. Thomson

Bruce A. Thomson, B.A.Sc.

President & CEO






page 1 of 2















Micron Enviro Systems Inc. hereby elects: 




_X__

To acquire its 3% share of the Oil Sands Lease




____

Not to acquire its 3% share of the Oil Sands Lease




Dated this _29th _ day of May, 2006




Micron Enviro Systems Inc.










Per: /s/ Bernard McDougall




Name:  Bernie McDougall

Tel: 604-646-6903

info@micronenviro.com

Fax: 604-689-1733




Title:

President






page 2 of 2
### Predicting the impact of relocating Boston's sewage outfall: Effluent dilution simulations in Massachusetts Bay

By: Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/fs18597

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 850.27 Hygiene facilities and practices. ( a ) *General.* The responsible employer must assure that in areas where workers are exposed to beryllium at or above the action level, without regard to the use of respirators: ( 1 ) Food or beverage and tobacco products are not used;
( 2 ) Cosmetics are not applied, except in change rooms or areas and shower facilities required under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section; and
( 3 ) Beryllium workers are prevented from exiting areas that contain beryllium with contamination on their bodies or their personal clothing.
( b ) *Change rooms or areas.* The responsible employer must provide clean change rooms or areas for beryllium workers who work in regulated areas. ( 1 ) Separate facilities free of beryllium must be provided for beryllium workers to change into, and store, personal clothing, and clean protective clothing and equipment to prevent cross-contamination;
( 2 ) The change rooms or areas that are used to remove beryllium-contaminated clothing and protective equipment must be maintained under negative pressure or located so as to minimize dispersion of beryllium into clean areas; and
( c ) *Showers and handwashing facilities.* ( 1 ) The responsible employer must provide handwashing and shower facilities for beryllium workers who work in regulated areas.
( 2 ) The responsible employer must assure that beryllium workers who work in regulated areas shower at the end of the work shift.
( d ) *Lunchroom facilities.* ( 1 ) The responsible employer must provide lunchroom facilities that are readily accessible to beryllium workers, and ensure that tables for eating are free of beryllium, and that no worker in a lunchroom facility is exposed at any time to beryllium at or above the action level.
( 2 ) The responsible employer must assure that beryllium workers do not enter lunchroom facilities with protective work clothing or equipment unless the surface beryllium has been removed from clothing and equipment by HEPA vacuuming or other method that removes beryllium without dispersing it.
( e ) The change rooms or areas, shower and handwashing facilities, and lunchroom facilities must comply with 29 CFR 1910.141, Sanitation.
SHARON KELLER

PRESIDING JUDGE Court of Criminal Appeals

P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

FILE COPY

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

(512)463-1551

SIAN SCHILHAB

GENERAL COUNSEL

(512)463-1597

LAWRENCE E. MEYERS

CHERYL JOHNSON

MIKE KEASLER

BARBARA P. HERVEY

ELSA ALCALA

BERT RICHARDSON

KEVIN P. YEARY

DAVID NEWELL

JUDGES

Thursday, July 02, 2015

FILED IN COURT OF APPEALS

12th Court ofAppgajsjOistricl

DAVON ONEYL GRAVES

TDC# 1894833

BRADSHAW UNIT

P.O. BOX 9000

HENDERSON, TX 75653-9000

Re: GRAVES, DAVON ONEYL

CCA No. PD-0345-15

Trial Court Case No. 007-0901-13

CATHY S. LUSK, CL

COANo. 12-13-00350-CR

This Court is in receipt of the Pro Se's Petition for Discretionary Review in the above

styled cause number. Records reflect an Opinion was issued by the 12th Court of Appeals on

March 4, 2015, affirming the conviction; a motion for rehearing was not filed. The Appellant

filed an extension of time to file Petition for Discretionary Review on March 27, 2015 and the

motion was granted on this same date; Petition for Discretionary Review was due in the Court of

Criminal Appeals on June 2, 2015. The 12th Court of Appeals issued mandate in the above

styled cause on June 29, 2015.

Since the 12th Court of Appeals has issued mandate in this case, NO ACTION WILL

BE TAKEN ON THIS PETITION. The petition is being scanned and made a permanent part of

the record in this Court.

Sincerely,

Abel Acosta, Clerk

cc: Lisa McMinn (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

12th Court OfAppeals Clerk (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

District Attorney Smith County (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Supreme Court Building, 201 West 14th Street, Room 106, Austin, Texas 78701

Website www.txcourts.gov/cca.aspx
§ 71.37 Quality assurance. ( a ) The applicant shall describe the quality assurance program (see Subpart H of this part) for the design, fabrication, assembly, testing, maintenance, repair, modification, and use of the proposed package.
( b ) The applicant shall identify any specific provisions of the quality assurance program that are applicable to the particular package design under consideration, including a description of the leak testing procedures.