alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 11

- 00556

- CR

Jacob Michael TREVINO

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas

, Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011CR1642 Honorable Angus McGinty , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice Rebecca S immons , Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 5, 2011

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The trial court imposed sentence on June 28, 2011. It does no t appear that a motion for

new trial was filed; therefore, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on July 28, 2011. T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 26.2(a)(1). Appellant filed his notice of appeal on August 1, 2011, and he did not file a

motion for extension of time i n which to file the notice

.

On August 8, 2011 , we ordered appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant did not file a response. This court lacks jurisdiction

over an appeal of a criminal conviction in the absence of a timely, written notice of appeal.04

- 11

- 00556

- CR

- 2

- Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Shute v. State , 744 S.W.2d 96, 97

(Tex. Crim. App. 1988); see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1991) (out

- of

- time appeal from felony conviction may be sought by filing a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure article 11.07). This appeal is

therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Oscar Gerardo Davila v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 2

- 01174

- CR

Tri al court case number: 1322703

Trial court: 263rd Judicial District Court of Harris County

The memorandum opinion and judgment issued in this appeal on May 15, 2014 are

hereby withdrawn. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 19.1, 19.2. This case is still pending before the Court.

Panel consisting of Justices Jennings, S harp, and Brown.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

_

/s/ Harvey Brown

_________ ________________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date:

___ July 14, 2014

__
600

690

70

300

1060

130

390

420

860

980

640

790

580

1410

770

740

1320

990

380

610

290

1020

150

200

320

840

850

780

410

1100

80

680

1290

60

750

1130

1120

230

1030

1370

440

1330

1200

1160

310

1430

240

830

820

1240

760

430

1070

330

720

1310

400

890

650

800

1450

1040

500

160

220

140

1380

250

350

630

1090

530

1110

260

1980

1360

1340 1350

1190

500

1986

1985

231

1994

115

208

20

2

4

30

126

135

132

130

206

541

113

1993

131

1980

160

209

266

335

128

145

125

210

134

420

423

295

227

507

316

276

430

448

330

289

211

389

136

265

120

216

105

144

350

236

570

187

234

205

233

138

442

348

338

312

326

475

232

119

142

506

127

441

320

133

447

509

274

260

169

477

116

405

257

263

345

457

282

260

266

119

132

126

1980

330

125

135

130

2400

2600

2800

2000

2200

3000

3200

1800

3400

3600

3800

4000

4200

4400

4600

4800

5000

5200

5400

3800

3200

3400

4000

3600

2400

3400

3200

4400

3200

3800

3000

5200

3200

4200

3400

4600

4600

4000

3800

4000

2600

4800

3600

2600

5000

2600

3800

3000

2800

3600

4200

4600

4000

4000

4400

4800

3400

4400

4800

2200

4800

2800

3200

3400

4200

2000

2600

3600

4400

3400

4800

2400

Ü 0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

This product is reproduced from geospatial information prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

By removing the contents of this package or taking receipt of these files via electronic file transfer methods, you understand

that the data stored on this media is in draft condition. Represented features may not be in an accurate geographic

location. The Forest Service makes no expressed or implied warranty, including warranty of merchantability and fitness,

with respect to the character, function, or capailities of the data or their propriateness for any user's purposes. The

Forest Service reserves the right to correct, update, modify, or replace this geospatial information without notification.

For more information, contact McKenzie River Ranger District: 822-3381

Road Decommision

Project Area

Regeneration

Thinning

Forest Rd 19

Streams

Wilderness

Critical Habitat Unit

Private Property

Temp Spur

Date: 2/15/2017

tjr

Bridge Replacement

Cougar

Reservoir

Green Mountain Project

Alternative 2 Modified (north)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1361

DIRECTV INCORPORATED,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JAY JONES,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

RON CAROLINA,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-03-3542-AW)

Submitted: August 10, 2005 Decided: September 16, 2005

Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jay Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Howard Robert Rubin, SONNENSCHEIN,

NATH & ROSENTHAL, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jay Jones appeals the district court clerk’s order of

default. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The

order Jones seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
9125- 15TH PLACE SOUTH SEA TILE , WASHINGTON 981 08-5100
JON HOLDEN District President Directing Busi ness Rep resentative SUSAN A. PALMER D istrict Secretory-Treasurer The Honorab le John F. Kerry Secretary of State US Department of State 2201 C Street NW Washington, DC 20520 The Honorable Anthony R. Foxx Secretary ofTransportation US Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Secretary Kerry and Secretary Foxx: April 23, 2015 FAX NUMBER EXECUTIVE OFFICE (206 ) 764-0303 FINANCIAL OFFICE (206) 764-0358 www.iom751.org SEA TILE (206) 763-1300 RENTON (425) 235-3777 EVERETI (425) 355-8821 AUBURN (253) 833-5590 TACOMA (253 ) 627-0822

I am writing on behalf of the members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 751 to bring attention to the blatant disregard for the Open Skies policy and fair competition held by three government-owned Gulf States airlines: Qatar Airways, Etihad Airways and Emirates Airline. These heavily-subsidized carriers are taking advantage of a vast ly uneven playing field to rapidly expand into the U

.S. market, costing the U.S. thousands of good, well

-paying jobs. In the last ten years, the three Gulf carriers have co ll ective ly received over $42 billion in subsidies and other unfair benefits from their host governments
- violating the spirit and letter of the Open Skies policy sign ed between the US, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This massive financial assistance has distorted the market and forced US carriers to shut down previously profitable routes. The primary casua lty of these unfair subsidies and benefits will be the American worker

. Airline experts estimate that for every international flight lost by a US carrier, 821 wel l-paying jobs will disappear. This will not just affect workers directly employed by airlines, but also the many industries that support aviation. What makes this development even more troubling is the atrocious labor standards of the three Gulf airlines in question. Abuses include bans on union membership, an adherence to archaic weight and appearance standards for employees and a ban on LGBT employment. We have already fought against these discriminatory policies -let's not go back to those practices in this day and age
. Please join the 33 thousand members of lAM District Lodge 751 in our commitment to open and healthy competition by supporting Open Skies policy. I urge you to open consu ltations with the Gulf States in order to address these imbalances.

opeiu8 afl-cio cc: Senator Murray cc: Senator Cantwell WA State Congressional Delegation Sincerely,

LARRY BROWN Legislative Director District Lodge 751 , IAM&AW

Continuing to improve your quality of life through Collective Bargaining , Political Action , and Organizing

.
NUMBER 13-18-00315-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE ZINA M. BURKETT

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Hinojosa

Order Per Curiam

Relator Zina M. Burkett filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above cause 

seeking to compel the trial court to vacate certain portions of an enforcement order as 

void. The Court requests that the real party in interest, Jason A. Burkett, or any others 

whose interest would be directly affected by the relief sought, file a response to the 

petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this 

order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

25th day of June, 2018.
#### § 1.6164-9 Cross references.

For provisions with respect to interest due on amounts the payment of which is extended under section 6164, see section 6601 and paragraph (e) of § 301.6601-1 of this chapter (Regulations on Procedure and Administration). For extensions of time under section 6164 in the case of corporations making or required to make consolidated returns, see § 1.1502-77(a).

[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12140, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 7244, 37 FR 28897, Dec. 30, 1972]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7756

JAMES OUTLAW,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; CHARLES MOLONY

CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South

Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (CA-95-3827-3-22BC)

Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 20, 1997

Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Outlaw, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214, for failure to exhaust state remedies. We have

reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant a certificate of

appealability and modify the district court's order to reflect that

the petition is dismissed without prejudice, we affirm the district

court's order as modified on the reasoning of the district court.

Outlaw v. South Carolina, No. CA-95-3827-3-22BC (D.S.C. Aug. 29,

1996). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
EXHIBIT 32.2



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 Cornerstone Realty Income Trust, Inc., (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly
represents, in all material respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Company as of September 30, 2003, and for the period then ended.



|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    Stanley J. Olander, Jr.                               
|                                                             
|Stanley J. Olander, Jr. President and Chief Financial Officer



November 13, 2003



25
# C_2015073EN.01004001.xml

| 2.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/40

---

Action brought on 25 November 2014 — SolarWorld v Commission

(Case T-783/14)

(2015/C 073/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare the application admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the application admissible and well-founded;

| — | annul the contested act; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested act; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By its action the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission’s decision to adjust the minimum import price for imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one single plea in law alleging that the Commission violated Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 (1) and Article 13(1) of Council Regulation No 597/2009 (2) by adjusting the minimum import price without assessing whether the adjusted minimum import price was adequate to eliminate the injurious effects of dumping and subsidisation.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 188, p. 93).

---
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 146

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the 1996 Special Olympics Torch Relay

to be run through the Capitol Grounds.
104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 146

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),
2

•HCON 146 EH

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF SPECIAL

2 OLYMPICS TORCH RELAY THROUGH CAPITOL

3 GROUNDS.

4 On May 24, 1996, or on such other date as the

5 Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Presi6 dent pro tempore of the Senate may jointly designate, the

7 1996 Special Olympics Torch Relay may be run through

8 the Capitol Grounds, as part of the journey of the Special

9 Olympics torch to the District of Columbia Special Olym10 pics summer games at Gallaudet University in the District

11 of Columbia.

12 SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

13 The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as

14 may be necessary to carry out section 1.

15 SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARA16 TIONS.

17 The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions

18 for physical preparations for the event authorized by sec19 tion 1.

Passed the House of Representatives March 26,

1996.

Attest:

Clerk.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 02691**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 02691\02691_Checklist_101910_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook



### 02691\02691_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 

### 02691\02691_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 02691\02691_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02691\02691_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02691\02691_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02691\02691_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02691\02691_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 02691\02691_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file



### 02691\Certification Statement_ 02691.pdf Plant certification statement 

### 02691\Supporting Documents\2691_A2-3 EIS 1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 02691\Supporting Documents\2691_A2-3 EIS 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 02691\Supporting Documents\2691_A2-3 EIS 3.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 02691\Supporting Documents\2691_A2-3 EIS 4.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02691\Supporting Documents\2691_A2-3 EIS 5.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 02691\Supporting Documents\2691_A2-3 EIS 6.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 02691\Supporting Documents\2691_A5-2 MAP-1.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### 02691\Supporting Documents\2691_A5-2 MAP-2.ppt Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02691\Supporting Documents\2691_A5-2 Water Balance Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey 

### x 02691\Supporting Documents\2691_D3-1 Block Diagram.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

2Copyright documents are available from the docket. 1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

.
# Официален вестник L 272/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0618 |
| --- | --- |
| Официален вестник
  на Европейския съюз | L 272 |
| | |
| Издание на български език | Законодателство | Година 6319 август 2020 г. |

ISSN 1977-0618

Официален вестник

на Европейския съюз

L 272

Издание на български език

Законодателство

Година 6319 август 2020 г.

---

| Съдържание | | Поправки | Страница |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Поправка на Окончателно приемане (ЕС, Евратом) 2020/1078 на коригиращ бюджет No 4 на Европейския съюз за финансовата 2020 година ( OB L 254, 4.8.2020 г. ) | 1 |

Съдържание

Поправки

Страница

*

Поправка на Окончателно приемане (ЕС, Евратом) 2020/1078 на коригиращ бюджет No 4 на Европейския съюз за финансовата 2020 година ( OB L 254, 4.8.2020 г. )

( OB L 254, 4.8.2020 г. )

1

| BG | Актовете, чиито заглавия се отпечатват с нормален шрифт, са актове по текущо управление на селскостопанската политика и имат кратък срок на действие.
  Заглавията на всички останали актове се отпечатват с удебелен шрифт и се предшестват от звезда. |
| --- | --- |

BG

Актовете, чиито заглавия се отпечатват с нормален шрифт, са актове по текущо управление на селскостопанската политика и имат кратък срок на действие.

Заглавията на всички останали актове се отпечатват с удебелен шрифт и се предшестват от звезда.

---

Поправки

| 19.8.2020 | BG | Официален вестник на Европейския съюз | L 272/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.8.2020

BG

Официален вестник на Европейския съюз

L 272/1

---

Поправка на Окончателно приемане (ЕС, Евратом) 2020/1078 на коригиращ бюджет No 4 на Европейския съюз за финансовата 2020 година

(
  Официален вестник на Европейския съюз L 254 от 4 август 2020 г.
  )

На страница 36, ред „Общо“, в колона „Бюджетна година 2020 — Плащания“

вместо:

„
  167 248 223 575
  “

да се чете:

„
  150 948 403 832
  “.

На страница 36, ред „Общо“, в колона „Нова сума — Плащания“

вместо:

„
  167 520 721 783
  “

да се чете:

„
  151 220 902 040
  “.

---
§ 1.901(j)-1 Denial of foreign tax credit with respect to certain foreign countries. ( a ) *Sourcing rule for certain payments and inclusions.* Any income paid or accrued through one or more entities is treated as income from sources within a country described in section 901(j)(2) if the income was, without regard to such entities, from sources within that country.
( b ) *Applicability date.* This section applies to taxable years that end on or after December 4, 2018.
[T.D. 9882, 84 FR 69075, Dec. 17, 2019]
1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1324

___________

Tommy L. Radford, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

T. S. Falls, Lt., Varner Unit, ADC, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: November 30, 2005

Filed: December 6, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, inmate Tommy L. Radford appeals the district

court’s1

 judgment entered upon a jury verdict in favor of Lieutenant Talbot Falls on

Radford’s claim that Falls failed to protect him from an assault by another inmate. In

the absence of a trial transcript, however, we cannot review Radford’s arguments

about the sufficiency of the evidence, the propriety of evidentiary rulings, or the

temporary substitution of a judge. See Meroney v. Delta Int’l Mach. Corp., 18 F.3d

1436, 1437 (8th Cir. 1994); Schmid v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, 827 F.2d
-2-

384, 386 (8th Cir. 1987) (per curiam), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1071 (1988). As to the

grant of Radford’s first and second appointed attorneys’ motions to withdraw, and the

refusal of the court to appoint counsel a third time, we find no abuse of discretion on

the record before us. See Swope v. Cameron, 73 F.3d 850, 851-52 (8th Cir. 1996)

(standard of review and relevant factors). Finally, we do not consider the issues raised

for the first time in Radford’s reply briefs, see Norwest Bank of N.D. v. Doth, 159

F.3d 328, 334 (8th Cir. 1998) (issues first raised in reply brief will generally not be

considered), other than to observe that Radford’s ineffective-assistance claim does not

support reversal in this civil action, see Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th

Cir. 1988).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-13-0001367 29-OCT-2014 08:11 AM