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

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00319-CR 

DOMENIC TRUMAN APPELLANT

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- 

FROM THE 362ND DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY 

TRIAL COURT NO. F16-443-362 

---------- 

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

---------- 

Pro se Appellant Domenic Truman attempts to appeal from the trial court’s 

judgment reached as a result of a plea bargain. Appellant pled guilty to the state 

jail felony of fraudulent use or possession of identifying information in exchange 

 1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. 
2 

for 180 days in county jail.2 Appellant signed a document including statements 

that he was mentally competent at the time of his plea and that his plea was 

made freely and voluntarily as well as a judicial confession of guilt, and he 

separately signed a waiver of appeal providing that he “waive[d] the right to any 

appeal in this case” and that he did “not desire to appeal.” The trial court’s 

certification of appeal provides that this is a plea-bargained case, the Appellant 

does not have the right to appeal, and he has waived his right of appeal.3

We informed Appellant by letter that this appeal was subject to dismissal 

based on the trial court’s certification unless he or any party desiring to continue 

the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal by 

September 2, 2016. We have received no response. 

We therefore dismiss this appeal.4

PER CURIAM 

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ. 

DO NOT PUBLISH 

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b) 

DELIVERED: October 13, 2016 

 2See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.44(a) (West 2011), § 32.51(b), (c)(1) 

(West Supp. 2016). 

3See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). 

4See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6784

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLEAMON ANDERSON, a/k/a Carmel,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Judge. (2:94-cr-00163-RBS-11)

Submitted: September 16, 2008 Decided: September 22, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cleamon Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman,

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cleamon Anderson appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3582(c)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008). We have reviewed the record

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Anderson,

No. 2:94-cr-00163-RBS-11 (E.D. Va. Apr. 17, 2008). 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.

AFFIRMED
§ 1.467-9 Effective/applicability dates and automatic method changes for certain agreements. ( a ) *In general.* Sections 1.467-1 through 1.467-7 are applicable for— ( 1 ) Disqualified leasebacks and long-term agreements entered into after June 3, 1996; and
( 2 ) Rental agreements not described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section that are entered into after May 18, 1999.
( b ) *Automatic consent for certain rental agreements.* Section 1.467-8 applies only to rental agreements described in § 1.467-8.
( c ) *Application of regulation project IA-292-84 to certain leasebacks and long-term agreements.* In the case of any leaseback or long-term agreement (other than a disqualified leaseback or long-term agreement) entered into after June 3, 1996, and on or before May 18, 1999, a taxpayer may choose to apply the provisions of regulation project IA-292-84 (1996-2 C.B. 462)(see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter).
( d ) *Entered into.* For purposes of this section and § 1.467-8, a rental agreement is entered into on its agreement date (within the meaning of § 1.467-1(h)(1) and, if applicable, § 1.467-1(f)(1)(i)).
( e ) *Change in method of accounting* — ( 1 ) *In general.* For the first taxable year ending after May 18, 1999, a taxpayer is granted consent of the Commissioner to change its method of accounting for rental agreements described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section to comply with the provisions of §§ 1.467-1 through 1.467-7.
( 2 ) *Application of regulation project IA-292-84.* For the first taxable year ending after May 18, 1999, a taxpayer is granted consent of the Commissioner to change its method of accounting for any rental agreement described in paragraph (c) of this section to comply with the provisions of regulation project IA-292-84 (1996-2 C.B. 462) (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter).
( 3 ) *Automatic change procedures.* A taxpayer changing its method of accounting in accordance with this paragraph (e) must follow the automatic change in accounting method provisions of Rev. Proc. 98-60 (see § 601.601(d)(2) of this chapter) except, for purposes of this paragraph (e), the scope limitations in section 4.02 of Rev. Proc. 98-60 are not applicable. A method change in accordance with paragraph (e)(1) of this section is made on a cut-off basis so no adjustment under section 481(a) is required.
( f ) *Application of section 1022.* The provisions of § 1.467-7(c)(2) and (4) relating to section 1022 are effective on and after January 19, 2017.
[T.D. 8820, 64 FR 26875, May 18, 1999, as amended by T.D. 9811, 82 FR 6238, Jan. 19, 2017]
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 123

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

DECEMBER 19, 1995

Received and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

To provide for the provisional approval of regulations applicable to certain covered employing offices and covered employees and to be issued by the Office of Compliance

before January 23, 1996.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. APPROVAL OF REGULATIONS.

4 The regulations applicable to employing offices which

5 are not the House of Representatives or the Senate and

6 covered employees who are not the employees of the House
2

HCON 123 RFS

1 of Representatives or the Senate which are to be issued

2 by the Office of Compliance before January 23, 1996, are

3 hereby approved on a provisional basis until such time as

4 such regulations are approved in accordance with section

5 304(c) of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995

6 (2 U.S.C. 1384(c)).

Passed the House of Representatives December 19,

1995.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

By LINDA NAVE,

Deputy Clerk.
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 April 27, 2010

y0419 

# Order

April 27, 2010

139754

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139754 COA: 291644 Wayne CC: 95-000820-01 FLOYD PHILLIP ALFORD, a/k/a FLOYD PHILLIP ALFRED, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 27, 2009 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G).
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 90

To express the sense of the Senate concerning the exercise of rights secured

under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

APRIL 1 (legislative day, MARCH 3), 1993

Mr. DURENBERGER (for himself and Mrs. KASSEBAUM) submitted the

following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Senate concerning the exercise

of rights secured under the First Amendment to the

Constitution.

Whereas Americans’ disparate views on the issue of abortion

result from deeply held moral, religious and civil rights

beliefs;

Whereas irresponsible and unjustified violence displaces the

legitimate expression of these convictions and further polarizes those who hold different views on abortion;

Whereas such violence fosters neither greater understanding

nor agreement on this divisive issue but only contributes

to the fracturing of our society; and
2

•SRES 90 IS

Whereas agreement and understanding on difficult social issues can be reached only through responsible dialogue

and nonviolent expression: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That, it is the sense of the Senate that—

2 (1) the rights to peaceful assembly and free ex3 pression as established by the First Amendment to

4 the Constitution of the United States are precious

5 rights, but neither the Constitution nor the laws of

6 this land sanction violence as a means of expressing

7 individual moral, religious or political beliefs; and

8 (2) the Senate condemns violence by individ9 uals, even in the pursuit of moral, religious, or polit10 ical goals, and deplores any acts that contribute to

11 the fracturing of our society.

Æ
#### § 1.807-2 Cross-reference.

For special rules regarding the treatment of modified guaranteed contracts (as defined in section 817A and § 1.817A-1(a)(1)), *see* § 1.817A-1.

[T.D. 9058, 68 FR 24350, May 7, 2003]
Exhibit 31(b)
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan
Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date:  August 6, 2010
    By:
    /s/ WAYNE R. BROWNLEEWayne R. BrownleeExecutive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: The regulations contained in this part have been recodified in 46 CFR part 287.

§ 2.1-22 Time extensions for expenditure or obligation. ( a ) *Extensions.* The Administration, upon application and a showing of proper circumstances, ( 1 ) may allow an extension of time within which deposits shall be expended or obligated, not to exceed one year, and upon a second application received before the expiration of the first extension, may allow an additional extension not to exceed one year, and
( 2 ) may allow an extension or extensions of time within which five percent of the construction shall have been completed as provided in § 2.1-21 not to exceed one year in the aggregate, and
( 3 ) may allow any other extensions that may be provided by amendment to the Act.
( b ) *Application required.* A taxpayer seeking an extension of time shall make application therefor, and transmit it with an appropriate statement of the circumstances, including the reasons justifying the requested extension or extensions, and appropriate documents in substantiation of the statement, to the Administration. The Administration will notify the Commissioner of Internal Revenue of any extension granted. In case an application for extension is denied, the taxpayer will be liable for delay as though no application had been made.
II 

~ 

I! 

[

I 

I 

Ii ! 

I , 

~SI~I'l"~ 

(~ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 

Devon Hill 

Keller & Hecman LLP 

100 I G Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

E-mail: hill@khlaw.com 

Dear Mr. Hill: 

April 14, 2011 

Public Health Service 

Food and Drug Administration 

5100 Paint Branch Parkway 

College Park, MD 20740 

This letteris in response to your ~ubmission, received on March 8, 20 II, requesting on behalf ofNalco 

Company, FDA's concurrence that chlorourea residues are not expected to become components offood 

as a result of the use of a urea-stabilized sodium hypochlorite solution as an anti-microbial in the wetend manufacture of food contact paper and paperboard. Your request has been logged in under 

correspondence tracking system as CTS 2011-1877 .. 

You provided for our review a narrative of the intended use regarding the fate· of chlorourea !esidues in 

the paper making process. N-chlorourea and N,N' -dichlorourea are residues formed by the reaction of 

urea and sodium hypochlorite. Urea. is listed as GRAS under 21 CFR 184.1923 and sodium 

hypochlorite is listed under 21 CFR 178.1 0 10 (sanitizing solutions). 

Based on the reaction you described, we believe that when chlorourea residues are formed in the 

presence of sodium hydroxide, there is a possibility that hydrazine and semicarbazide which are known 

carcinogens may be formed as well. We requested on March 28, 2011 that you address the likelihood 

that residual hydrazine and semicarbazide could remain in the fmished paper and paperboard. You 

submitted your response on April 8, 2011. Based on this response, we have concluded that although it 

is possible to synthesize hydrazine and samicarbazide from these materials, the conditions in the head 

box of paper making are not conducive to such synthesis; the pH used in the paper processing is not 

nearly high enough and the materials are quite dilute. 

Based on all the information you provided, we have determined that most of the chlorourea residues is 

expected to be consumed by the oxidant demand of the paper manufacturing system, or to hydrolyze 

rather than to become a component of the pulp or paper. Further, any chlorourea residue that does 

become incorporated into the paper is expected to volatilize or decompose when the sheet is stearn dried 

at high temperatores in the paper making process. Therefore, we have concluded that chlorourea : 

residues are not expected to become components of food as a result of your proposed use as a biocide, 

at levels not to exceed 10 ppm (mglkg), in the manufacture of food-contact paper and paperboard. 
Page 2 - Mr. Hill 

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. 

s~_,, __ ~ Francis Lin, Ph.D. 

Director 

Division of Food Contact Notifications, HFS-275 

Office of Food Additive Safety 

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EDDIE ESTEP

,

Appellant

,

v

.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 9

- 00 280

- CR

Appeal from the

205 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 201 50D04089 )

O R D E R

The Court G R ANTS Jo

- Anne Hilverding ’s request for an extension of time within

which to file the Reporter’s Record until March 1 7

, 20 20

. NO FURTHER REQUESTS

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE REPORTER’S RECORD WIL BE CONSIDERED

BY THIS COURT.

It is furth er OR DERED that Jo

- Anne Hilverding

, Official Court Reporter for the 205 th

District Court

, for El Paso County, Texas, prepare the Reporter’s Record for the a bove styled

and numbered cause and forward the same to this Court on or before March 1 7

, 20 20.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3 rd day of February 20 20

.

PER CURIAM

Before Alley , C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox , JJ.
39719.

#### GEORGE v. RILEY.

Hall, Judge.

On the trial of an action for property damages growing out of an intersection collision, the evidence presented by the plaintiff (defendant in error) and by the defendant (plaintiff in error) was in sharp conflict, and the trial court awarded judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant assigns error on the judgment of the trial court denying his motion for new trial on the general and two special grounds. *Held:*

1. Assuming that evidence offered by cross-examination of the plaintiff as to testimony he had given in a previous criminal proceeding, allegedly inconsistent with his testimony at the trial, was admissible for the purpose of impeachment, the ground of the motion for new trial complaining of the exclusion of such testimony is without merit, because it does not show that the foundation required by *Code*§ 38-1803 was laid to prove the plaintiff’s alleged contradictory statement. *Johnson v. Roberson,*88 Ga. App. 548, 549, 555 (77 SE2d 232) ; *Quinton v. Peck,*195 Ga. 299, 304 (34 SE2d 36).

2. It has been held error to admit over proper objection in a civil case evidence that a criminal charge has been made or has not been made against a party. *Keebler v. Willard,*91 Ga. App. 551, 552 (86 SE2d 379); *Smith v. Goodwin,*103 Ga. App. 248, 249 (119 SE2d 35). Evidence admitted in the present case, that the defendant had entered a plea of not guilty in traffic court, is equivalent in effect to evidence that a case has been made. Nevertheless, the overruling of a ground of a motion for new trial complaining of the admission of such evidence over objection that it is “inadmissible, irrelevant, immaterial, and harmful” is not reversible error, the objection not showing specifically why the evidence should not be admitted. *Greyhound Corp. v. Clough,*211 Ga. 574 (87 SE2d 387); *McBride v. Johns,*73 Ga. App. 444, 445 (36 SE2d 822); Green, Georgia Law of Evidence 35, § 12.

*551Decided September 19, 1962.

*Charles W. Bergman, W. Owen Slate,*for plaintiff in error.

*Jack Turoff,*contra.

3. Since the evidence, though in conflict, was sufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff, the trial court did not err in denying the motion for new trial on the general grounds.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Felton, C. J., and Bell, J., concur.*
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Morganzato the Gulf of Mexico, LA : final post authorization change report and revisedprogrammatic environmental impact statement, May 2013 : communication from theAssistant Secretary of the Army, Civil Works, the Department of Defensetransmitting a report concerning the update Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico,Louisiana, hurricane and storm damage risk reduction project.**
 
Part1: pdf| txt
Part2: pdf| txt
 
SuDoc:Y 1.1/7:113-79/
Item Number:0996-F (online)
CGP systemNumber:000920390
 
December 12, 2017
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     The condensed consolidated balance sheets and the condensed consolidated
     statement of operations found in the company's Form 10-Q for the six
     months ended June 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         17,518
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  17,534
<ALLOWANCES>                                      731
<INVENTORY>                                    12,709
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               49,716
<PP&E>                                         24,313
<DEPRECIATION>                                 15,068
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 64,157
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          29,997
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       59,319
<OTHER-SE>                                    (25,746)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   64,157
<SALES>                                        38,226
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               41,319
<CGS>                                          35,004
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  51,938
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  528
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 51
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,142)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       65
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,207)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,207)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.44)



</TABLE>
The Elco Corporation 1000 Belt Line Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44109-2800 • Tel (216) 749-2605 • Fax (216) 749-7462 

CBIC control Number 

May 22,2014 

Document Control Office (DC0)(7 407M) 

Office of Pollution Control and Toxics (OPPT) 

U.S. EPA 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington D.C. 20460 

Via Certified Mail: 7004 1160 0003 4669 2269 

Attn: 40 CFR Part 799.5089 (Docket #EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0112) 

The ELCO Corporation 

TSCA Section 4- HPV3 Testing Program 

Testing for CAS#72162-15-3 (1-Decene, sulfurized) 

Test Results Submitted by Dover Chemical Corporation 

To Whom It May Concern: 

360260 

The ELCO Corporation, 100 Belt Line Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44109-2800, 

hereby provides notice that the Dover Chemical Corporation, 3676 Davis Road N.W., 

Dover, OH 44622 (Dover Chemical), submitted test results to US EPA for CAS#72162-

15-3 (1-Decene, sulfurized) on or about May 9, 2014 in accordance with the testing 

program referenced above. ELCO contributed its proportionate share of the cost of this 

testing conducted by another person, Dover Chemical. This notification memorializes 

the submittal of said test results to US EPA and ELCO's participation in the testing. 

Sincerely, 

ThomasW. Steib 

Vice President Manufacturing 

The Elco Corporation 

(440) 997-6131, ext. 201 

tsteib@elcocorp.com 

Worldwide Supplier of Specialty Chemicals Since 1927 

.5 z 

-go 

"'0::: 

~<( ez 

Q.V) 

011 •• 

-c>-

... ..c 2(1) 

~0 "'-

•