alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion filed January 6, 2011

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-10-00252-CR

__________

DONNIE RAY CARRION, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 350th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 9435-D

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The trial court convicted Donnie Ray Carrion, upon his plea of guilty, of possession of 

cocaine and found both enhancement allegations to be true. Pursuant to the plea bargain 

agreement, the trial court imposed a sentence of confinement for eight years. We affirm.

On appeal, appellant contends in two issues that the trial court erred by failing to provide 

him with counsel at the hearing on his pro se motion for new trial. The State argues that this 

court lacks authority to consider appellant’s issues challenging the ruling on his postconviction 

motion under Woods v. State, 108 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). We agree.
2

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(2) provides that, in plea bargain agreement situations where the 

punishment assessed does not exceed that in the agreement, appellant may only challenge those 

matters raised in written motions ruled upon prior to trial or those matters that the trial court 

gives permission to challenge. In Woods, the Court of Criminal Appeals stated that the “plain 

import of [former TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(b)(3) now Rule 25.2(2)] is that appeals from plea bargaincase are limited to the situations set forth in the rule. Consequently, a court of appeals is not 

authorized to address points of error that do not fall within . . . Rule [25.2(2)].” Woods, 108 

S.W.3d at 316. 

In its certificate of right to appeal, the trial court gave appellant permission to appeal “as 

to the issue of whether or not the plea was voluntary.” This is not the issue that appellant has 

briefed. Therefore, we lack the authority to address the issues that appellant did brief. Rule 

25.2(2); Woods, 108 S.W.3d at 315-16. Appellant’s issues are dismissed.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

January 6, 2011

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.
IA

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 132

Affirming that budget negotiations shall be based on the most recent technical

and economic assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office and shall

achieve a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002 based on those assumptions.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 18 (legislative day, DECEMBER 15), 1995

Mr. KASICH (for himself, Mr. CONDIT, and Mr. HOBSON) introduced the following joint resolution; which was considered under suspension of the

rules and passed

JOINT RESOLUTION

Affirming that budget negotiations shall be based on the

most recent technical and economic assumptions of the

Congressional Budget Office and shall achieve a balanced

budget by fiscal year 2002 based on those assumptions.

Whereas on November 20 the President signed legislation

(Public Law 104–56) committing Congress and the

President to ‘‘enact legislation in the first session of the

104th Congress to achieve a balanced budget not later

than fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional

Budget Office’’;

Whereas Congress has approved legislation that achieves a

balanced budget in fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the

Congressional Budget Office;
2

•HJ 132 CPH

Whereas congressional Democrats have offered alternative

budgets in the House and Senate which also achieve balance in fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office;

Whereas the commitment to enact legislation in the first session of Congress requires action now in negotiations;

Whereas the negotiations have no preconditions on levels of

spending or taxation, except that the resulting budget

must achieve balance by fiscal year 2002 as estimated by

the Congressional Budget Office;

Whereas the Congressional Budget Office has updated its

technical and economic assumptions following a thorough

consultation with government and private experts; and

Whereas the Congressional Budget Office has begun consultation and review with the Office of Management and

Budget: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That the current negotiations between Congress and the

4 President shall be based on the most recent technical and

5 economic assumptions of the Congressional Budget Office,

6 and that the Congress is committed to reaching an agree7 ment this year with the President on legislation that will

8 achieve a balanced budget by fiscal year 2002 as estimated

9 by the Congressional Budget Office.

Æ
Bureau of Labor Statistics

Series Id:

Series title:

Labor force status:

Type of data:

Age:

Years:

Year Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Annual

2011 21780

Employed full time (persons who usually work 

Number in thousands

55 years and over

2011 to 2011

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

Original Data Value

LNU02524230Q

Not Seasonally Adjusted

(Unadj) Employed, Usually Work Full Time, 55 

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:09:41 PM)
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsProgrammable Logic Device (PLD) Design Description for the Integrated Power, Avionics, and Software (iPAS) Space Telecommunications Radio System (STRS) RadioThe Space Telecommunications Radio System (STRS) provides a common, consistent framework for software defined radios (SDRs) to abstract the application software from the radio platform hardware. The STRS standard aims to reduce the cost and risk of using complex, configurable and reprogrammable radio systems across NASA missions. To promote the use of the STRS architecture for future NASA advanced exploration missions, NASA Glenn Research Center (GRC) developed an STRS compliant SDR on a radio platform used by the Advance Exploration System program at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in their Integrated Power, Avionics, and Software (iPAS) laboratory. At the conclusion of the development, the software and hardware description language (HDL) code was delivered to JSC for their use in their iPAS test bed to get hands-on experience with the STRS standard, and for development of their own STRS Waveforms on the now STRS compliant platform.The iPAS STRS Radio was implemented on the Reconfigurable, Intelligently-Adaptive Communication System (RIACS) platform, currently being used for radio development at JSC. The platform consists of a Xilinx ML605 Virtex-6 FPGA board, an Analog Devices FMCOMMS1-EBZ RF transceiver board, and an Embedded PC (Axiomtek eBox 620-110-FL) running the Ubuntu 12.4 operating system. Figure 1 shows the RIACS platform hardware. The result of this development is a very low cost STRS compliant platform that can be used for waveform developments for multiple applications.The purpose of this document is to describe the design of the HDL code for the FPGA portion of the iPAS STRS Radio particularly the design of the FPGA wrapper and the test waveform.Document ID20170004668Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsShalkhauser, Mary Jo W.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredMay 23, 2017Publication DateApril 1, 2017Subject CategoryCommunications And RadarAircraft Communications And NavigationReport/Patent NumberGRC-E-DAA-TN36856NASA/TM-2017-219429E-19320Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 089407.01.22Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.KeywordsVHDLBit Error RateSoftwareSTRSRadio ElectronicsSoftware Defined RadioFirmwareModulationFlight ComputerAvailable DownloadsNameType20170004668.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
###### Editorial Note on Part 301

#### Editorial Note:

In the text of this part, integral section references are to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; decimal section references are to the Code of Federal Regulations.

References in the text to the “Code” are references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

#### § 301.6019-1 Gift tax returns.

For provisions relating to requirement of gift tax returns, see §§ 25.6019-1 to 25.6019-4, inclusive, of this chapter (Gift Tax Regulations).

Miscellaneous Provisions
0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Three-year average of expected number of days above the standard

Banning Palm Springs Redlands One-hour ozone standard

Note: A 1-hour ozone design value is the expected number of days per year above the standard, averaged over three consecutive years. The revoked 1-

hour ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is 

less than or equal to 1. All data may not be valid due to data completeness issues, and exceptional event data that have been concurred by EPA have 

been excluded from design value calculations. X-axis labels represent the most recent year of a consecutive three-year period. Sources: US EPA's Air 

Quality Systems (AQS) database (October 24, 2012), http://epa.gov/air/criteria.html#8, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title40-

vol2/pdf/CFR-2010-title40-vol2-part50-appH.pdf .

1-HOUR OZONE DESIGN VALUES ADJACENT TO MORONGO TRIBAL LANDS 

(1990 - 2011)
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

CONCENTRATION (ppm)

Banning Palm Springs Redlands 1-Hour Ozone Standard

Note: Exceptional event data that have been concurred by EPA have been excluded. The revoked 1-hour ozone concentration standard is 0.12 parts 

per million (ppm). Sources: US EPA's Air Quality Systems (AQS) database (October 24, 2012), http://epa.gov/air/criteria.html#8, 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title40-vol2/pdf/CFR-2010-title40-vol2-part50-appH.pdf .

1-HOUR OZONE ANNUAL MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS ADJACENT TO 

MORONGO TRIBAL LANDS (1990 - 2011)
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H.CON. RES. 208

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 2, 1996

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make

a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 3103.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill (H.R.

3 3103), to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to

4 improve portability and continuity of health insurance cov5 erage in the group and individual markets, to combat
2

HCON 208 RDS

1 waste, fraud, and abuse in health insurance and health

2 care delivery, to promote the use of medical savings ac3 counts, to improve access to long-term care services and

4 coverage, to simplify the administration of health insur5 ance, and for other purposes, the Clerk of the House of

6 Representatives shall make the following correction:

7 Strike subtitle H of title II of the bill and the

8 items corresponding to such subtitle in the table of

9 contents of the bill in section 1(b).

Passed the House of Representatives August 2,

1996.

Attest: ROBIN H. CARLE,

Clerk.

By LINDA NAVE,

Deputy Clerk.
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 152 (Monday, August 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 39916]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19014]

[[Page 39916]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Notice of Proposed Change to Section IV of the Virginia State 
Technical Guide

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department 
of Agriculture.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of proposed changes in the Virginia NRCS 
State Technical Guide for review and comment.

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

SUMMARY: It has been determined by the NRCS State Conservationist for 
Virginia that changes must be made in the NRCS State Technical Guide 
specifically in practice standards: 356, Dike; 378, 
Pond; 402, Dam; 554, Draining Water Management; 
587, Structure for Water Control; and 606, Subsurface 
Drain. These practices will be used to plan and install conservation 
practices on cropland, pastureland, woodland, and wildlife land.

DATES: Comments will be received for a 30-day period commencing with 
the date of this publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inquire in writing to John A. Bricker, 
State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 
1606 Santa Rosa Road, Suite 209, Richmond, Virginia 23229-5014; 
Telephone number (804) 287-1691; Fax number (804) 287-1737. Copies of 
the practice standards will be made available upon written request to 
the address shown above or on the Virginia NRCS Web site: http://www.va.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/draftstandards.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after 
enactment of the law to NRCS State technical guides used to carry out 
highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made 
available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS 
in Virginia will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. 
Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in 
Virginia regarding disposition of those comments and a final 
determination of change will be made to the subject standards.

    Dated: July 21, 2009.
John A. Bricker,
State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
Richmond, Virginia.
[FR Doc. E9-19014 Filed 8-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
```
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



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that
this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Cornerstone Realty Trust, Inc.



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



August 14, 2003



1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This article contains summary financial information extracted from the six month
period  ended  September  29,  2000 Form 10-Q  Balance  Sheet and  Statement  of
Operations  and is qualified  in its  entirety by  reference  to such  financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000856135
<NAME>                        American Tax Credit Properties III L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   MAR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                      MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-29-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                            1.00
<CASH>                                      250
<SECURITIES>                              3,103
<RECEIVABLES>                                31
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          3,384
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            7,266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     2,588
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                4,678
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              7,266
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            117
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            616
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (499)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                               (499)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0


</TABLE>
COMPENSATION TO AN ADMINISTRATOR. OF AN ADMINISTRATOR.

Circuit Court of Cuyahoga County.

#### Edward Madden, Administrator, v. Edward M. McGillin, Administrator.

Decided, February 29, 1904.

Under circumstances warranting it, the probate court has authority- to allow special compensation and attorney fees to the administrator of the estate of an administrator of another estate, for extra services performed by the last administrator and his attorneys in and about the filing of the final account of the deceased administrator of' the first estate.

Winch, J.; Hale, J., and Marvin, J., concur.

Error to the court of common pleas.

It appears that Sarah McGuire died in this county, leaving an estate of which Mary McGillin was appointed administratrix, and when Mary McGillin died, Edward M. McGillin was appointed her administrator, and filed a final account that should have been filed by Mary McGiliin as administratrix on the estate of Sarah McGuire, claiming special compensation and attor*608ney fees for extra services rendered in and for the filing of that final account, which were allowed by the probate court in the sum of one hundred dollars for extra compensation to the administrator, and seventy-five dollars attorney fees.

The matter went to the common pleas court and the common pleas court allowed the attorney fees, but reversed the probate court on the allowance to the administrator for extra compensation.

We hold, that under circumstances warranting it, the probate court has authority to allow special compensation and attorney fees to the administrator of the estate of an administrator of another estate, for extra services performed by the last administrator and his attorneys in and about the filing of the final account of the deceased administrator of the first estate.

And so, upon the review of this case, we find that attorney fees were properly allowed, and owing to the fact that the account itself is not before us or attached to the record or bill of exceptions, we are unable to determine whether the extra compensation should have been allowed the administrator, or not, and therefore affirm the common pleas court in the reversal of the probate court.

The judgment of the court of common pleas is affirmed in that regard.

Both the petition of the plaintiff in error and the cross-petition of the defendant in error are dismissed.
Exhibit
10.20


SECOND
AMENDMENT

TO

LUMP SUM DESIGN-BUILD AGREEMENT

BETWEEN 

HIGHWATER ETHANOL, LLC AND FAGEN, INC.


RECITALS


A.            Highwater Ethanol, LLC (“Highwater”)
and Fagen, Inc. (“Fagen”) (collectively, “the Parties”) have entered into that
certain Lump Sum Design-Build Agreement dated September 28, 2006 (the “Agreement”),
as amended by a First Amendment thereto by and between said Parties.


B.            The Agreement in paragraph 6.2
Notice to Proceed: Commencement requires Owner (Highwater) to issue a valid
Notice to Proceed within one-hundred and eighty (180) days of the effective
date (effective date being September 28, 2006) otherwise, the Agreement may be
terminated, at Design-Builder’s sole option.


C.            The Parties mutually desire to amend
and extend the time frame in which Owner is authorized to issue a valid Notice
to Proceed.


NOW, THEREFORE, in
consideration of the foregoing and the agreements set forth herein, and the
mutual reliance hereon, the Parties hereby agree for themselves and their
respective successors and assigns as follows:


1.             Acknowledgement of Recitals.
The Parties are accurately described above, the recitals set forth above are
adopted as the Agreement of the Parties, and the facts and statements set forth
therein are acknowledged and agreed to be true and accurate.


2.             Amendment to Agreement.  Pursuant to this Second Amendment to Lump Sum
Design-Build Agreement (“Amendment”) the Parties amend paragraph 6.2 of the
Agreement as follows:


The sentence in
said paragraph 6.2 of the Agreement which reads:


“Design-Builder must receive a valid Owner’s Notice to Proceed within
one-hundred and eighty (180) days of the Effective Date; otherwise, this Agreement
may be terminated, at Design-Builder’s sole option”; is hereby deleted.


In its place and stead
the following is inserted:


“Design-Builder must receive a valid Owner’s Notice to Proceed by
August 15, 2007; otherwise, this Agreement may be terminated at Design-Builder’s
sole option.”


3.             Continuing Effect.  Except as expressly modified by this
Amendment, all of the provision of the Agreement and the First Amendment
thereto remain in full force and effect; 



 1
 









 


specifically, all other
provisions of paragraph 6.2 of the Agreement, except as specifically amended by
paragraph 2 hereof shall stay in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, Highwater and Fagen have caused this Amendment to be executed by their
duly authorized representatives.


	
  FAGEN, INC.

  	
   

  	
  HIGHWATER ETHANOL, LLC

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/ Roland “Ron”
  Fagen

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Brian Kletscher

  
	
  By: Roland “Ron”
  Fagen

  	
   

  	
  By: Brian Kletscher

  
	
  Its:
  CEO/President

  	
   

  	
  Its: President

  



 



 2