alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued January 4 , 2024

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 23
- 00716
- CR

——————————— IN RE RONALD WAYNE JOHNSON , Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION On October 5, 2023, R elator Ronald Wayne Johnson filed a document titled “Criminal: Writ of Mandamus: [a] nd : Writ of Habeas Corpus

. ” Relator subsequently filed: an "Amended [Petition for] Writ [of] Mandamus” on November 2, 2023; an “Exhibit” to his originally filed petition, titled “Writ of Mandamus

. . . to: County Judge George” on November 8, 2023; and a “ Criminal Mandamus: (Amended) ” on Dec ember 13, 2023. In his filings, R elator appears to challeng e the policies of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the actions2

of some staff in its prison s. However, i t is unclear what relief , if any, R elator seeks from this Court.
T o the extent Relator seeks relief through a writ of mandamus, we deny the petition for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3 (a) (identity of parties and counsel), (b) (table of contents), (c) (index of authorities), (d) (statement of the case), (e) (statement of jurisdiction), (f) (issues presented), (g) (statement of facts), (h) (argument), (i) (prayer), (j) (certification) ,
a nd (k) (appendix); T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 9.5 (service); and T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7(a)(1) (inclusion of sworn record ); see also In re Hughes , 607 S.W.3d 136, 138 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding) (dismissing mandamus without prejudice for failure to comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure )

. If instead, R elator seek s relief though a writ of habeas corpus , his writ fails because this Court does not possess original habeas jurisdiction

. As such, we lack jurisdiction to consider Relator’s writ. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 11.05;

see also Denby v. State , 627 S.W.2d 435 (Tex. App.

— Houston [ 1st Dist.] 1981, orig. proceeding) (“The Courts of Appeals have no original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal matters; th eir jurisdiction is appellate only.”). Accordingly, we deny R elator ’s petition s . Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). A ny pending motions are denied as moot.3 PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Landau and Rivas

- Molloy. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b).
[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:****Annual report [electronicresource].**
 
2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005
 
SuDoc Number:ID 1.27:J 22/
Item Number:0900-I-18 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000635274
 
September 16, 2019
# oaquin

# Va AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT

April 17,2009 James Goldstene, Executive Officer California Air Resources Board P.O. Box 281 5 Sacramento, CA 9581 2 Dear Mr. Goldstene: Attached isthe RACT Demonstration for Ozone SIP,which was adopted bythe San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Governing Board onApril 16,2009. We request that the California Air Resources Board (ARB)transmit the RACT Demonstration for Ozone SIP and the appropriate documentation to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision. Included with this Ozone RACT SIP arethe following attachments: 1. ARB SIP Completeness Checklist 2. Evidence of Public Hearing 3. Governing Board Resolution for the RACT SIP and negative declaration for two source categories covered by EPA CTGs 

### 4. Additional Materials: Governing Board Memo Final Staff Report with all appendices The RACT Demonstration for Ozone SIP Analysis is also being mailedto ARB staff. If you have any questions, please contact Errol Villegas at (559) 230-61 00 or by e-mail at 

### errol.villegas@valleyair.org. The District thanks you and your staff for your assistance. Sincerely

Scott Nester Director of Planning

Seyed Sadredin Executive DirectorIAir Pollution Control Officer

Prried in re:yced Japar 6
EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO






18 U.S.C. §1350,






AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO






SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002









In connection with the Quarterly Report of BayHill Capital Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert K. Bench, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 results of operations of the Company.













Dated: February 14, 2010                                                                                     /s/  Robert K. Bench


Robert K. Bench


Chief Executive Officer











This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 16,915.

#### Conzman, Treasurer, etc., *v.*Terre Haute Brewing Company.

Filed May 29, 1894.

From the Vigo Circuit Court.

*A. G. Smith,*Attorney-General, and *S. B. Hanvill,*for appellant.

Coffey, J.

The legal question involved in this case, is the same as the principal question involved in the case of *Jones, Treas.,*v. *Rushville Nat'l Bank,*138 Ind. 87, and upon the authority of that case, the judgment rendered herein is affirmed.
#### Robert Keith KEEFER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 80-965.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 5, 1981.

J. Edward Worton, Key West, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Rosen-blatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ and FERGUSON, JJ., and EZELL, BOYCE F., Jr. (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant claims error in a jury instruction that possession of cannabis is a lesser included offense of the crime of sale or delivery as charged in the information. We find both (a) that Keefer did not preserve the alleged error for appellate review, see *Carter v. State,*380 So.2d 541 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), cert. denied, 388 So.2d 1110 (Fla.1980); *Thompson v. State,*368 So.2d 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), and cases cited; and (b) that, as was squarely held in the case of his co-defendant, *Bradshaw v. State,*(Fla. 3d DCA Case No. 80-966, opinion filed, February 10, 1981), his contention is substantively incorrect on the facts involved below.

Affirmed.
# Hungary

94 items

        -    Report  		2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Hungary	  March 20, 2023 
        -    Special Briefing  		Special Online Briefing with Ambassador Julianne Smith, U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO	  February 13, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – February 2, 2023	  Ned PriceFebruary 2, 2023Washington, D.C. 
        -    Remarks  		The Importance of Detained Fighters and Displaced Persons in Northeast Syria to the Future of ISIS	  Ian MossOctober 20, 2022D-ISIS FTF Working Group MeetingBudapest, Hungary 
        -    Special Briefing  		Online Briefing with Peter Harrell,  Senior Director for International Economics and Competitiveness, Ruth Berry,  Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Information and Communications Policy,  and Peter A. Winn,  Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer	  October 7, 2022 
        -    TIAS  		Hungary (22-928.1) – Arrangement for the Exchange of Technical Information and Cooperation in Nuclear Safety Matters	  September 28, 2022 
        -    Press Statement  		Hungary’s National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenAugust 19, 2022 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – July 28, 2022	  Ned PriceJuly 28, 2022Washington, DC 
        -    Report  		2022 Investment Climate Statements: Hungary	  July 28, 2022 
        -    Report  		2022 Trafficking in Persons Report: Hungary	  July 19, 2022 

previous page12345…10next page

Back to Top
§ 1001.3002 Basis for reinstatement. ( a ) The OIG will authorize reinstatement if it determines that— ( 1 ) The period of exclusion has expired;
( 2 ) There are reasonable assurances that the types of actions that formed the basis for the original exclusion have not recurred and will not recur; and
( 3 ) There is no additional basis under sections 1128(a) or (b) or 1128A of the Act for continuation of the exclusion.
( b ) In making the reinstatement determination described in paragraph (a) of this section, the OIG will consider— ( 1 ) Conduct of the individual or entity occurring prior to the date of the notice of exclusion, if not known to the OIG at the time of the exclusion;
( 2 ) Conduct of the individual or entity after the date of the notice of exclusion;
( 3 ) Whether all fines and all debts due and owing (including overpayments) to any Federal, State, or local government that relate to Medicare, Medicaid, and all other Federal health care programs have been paid or satisfactory arrangements have been made to fulfill obligations;
( 4 ) Whether CMS has determined that the individual or entity complies with, or has made satisfactory arrangements to fulfill, all the applicable conditions of participation or supplier conditions for coverage under the statutes and regulations;
( 5 ) Whether the individual or entity has, during the period of exclusion, submitted claims, or caused claims to be submitted or payment to be made by any Federal health care program, for items or services the excluded party furnished, ordered, or prescribed, including health care administrative services. This section applies regardless of whether an individual or entity has obtained a program provider number or equivalent, either as an individual or as a member of a group, prior to being reinstated; and
( c ) If the OIG determines that the criteria in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section have been met, an entity excluded in accordance with § 1001.1001 will be reinstated upon a determination by the OIG that the individual whose conviction, exclusion, or civil money penalty was the basis for the entity's exclusion— ( 1 ) Has properly reduced his or her ownership or control interest in the entity below 5 percent;
( 2 ) Is no longer an officer, director, agent or managing employee of the entity; or
( 3 ) Has been reinstated in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section or § 1001.3005.
( d ) Reinstatement will not be effective until the OIG grants the request and provides notice under § 1001.3003(a) of this part. Reinstatement will be effective as provided in the notice.
( e ) A determination with respect to reinstatement is not appealable or reviewable except as provided in § 1001.3004.
( f ) An ALJ may not require reinstatement of an individual or entity in accordance with this chapter.
[57 FR 3330, Jan. 29, 1992, as amended at 63 FR 46691, Sept. 2, 1998; 64 FR 39427, July 22, 1999; 82 FR 4117, Jan. 12, 2017]
#### F. Ronald COLLINS, Appellant, v. Susan COLLINS, Appellee.

No. 80-2198.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 2, 1981.

Stephen D. Hughes, Largo, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We find that the Order upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Sale of Real Property was improperly entered by the trial court and therefore reverse.

When there is a necessity for partition and sale of real property, and the parties refuse to cooperate, the sale must be held in accordance with the mechanics of section 64.061 et seq. Florida Statutes (1979). *See Carlsen v. Carlsen,*346 So.2d 132 (Fla.2d DCA 1977).

The order below is set aside and this cause remanded for partition according to statutory procedures,

REVERSED.

GRIMES, A. C. J., and OTT and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
HomeSlovakia

# Slovakia

82 items

        -    Press Statement  		NATO Accession Anniversaries for Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Slovakia, Slovenia	  Antony J. BlinkenMarch 28, 2024 
        -    Special Needs Profile  		Bratislava, Slovakia: QSI International School of Bratislava: 2024 Special Needs Profile	  February 29, 2024 
        -    Department of Justice Release  		Slovakian Man Accused of Running Darknet Market Selling Drugs and Personal Information	  December 21, 2023 
        -    DipNote: Countering Terrorism  		Progress in Repatriations: How Foreign Assistance Is Addressing the Humanitarian and Security Crises in Northeast Syria: Part 1 of 2	  December 4, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		The United States Joins Multinational Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050 to Support Global Climate and Energy Security Goals	  December 2, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary O’Brien’s Travel to Slovakia and Austria	  November 30, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		United States Launches Project Phoenix to Accelerate the Adoption of Advanced Clean Energy Technologies in Europe	  November 9, 2023 
        -    Overseas Schools Fact Sheet  		Bratislava, Slovakia: QSI International School of Bratislava: 2023-2024 Fact Sheet	  October 26, 2023 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – October 2, 2023	  Matthew MillerOctober 2, 2023Washington, D.C.  
        -    Media Note  		Special Presidential Envoy for Climate Kerry Announces Project Phoenix Participants and the Nuclear Expediting the Energy Transition (NEXT) Program	  September 7, 2023 

123…9next page

Back to Top
*The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission*

----

# Freedom Of Information Act Reference Guide

(Issued May 2006 by the Office of Legal Counsel)

I. Introduction

II. Executive Order 13392, “Improving Agency Disclosure of Information”

III. Access to Certain Records Without a FOIARequest

IV. Where to Make a FOIA Request

V. How to Make a FOIA Request

VI. Time for Response

VII. Expedited Processing

VIII. Fees

IX. Fee Waivers

X. Initial Request Determination

XI. Summary of Exemptions

XII. Appeals

----

*This page was last modified on August 13, 2009.*

Return to Home Page
# Sri Lanka

102 items

        -    Report  		2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: Sri Lanka	  May 12, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – April 21, 2021	  Ned PriceApril 21, 2021 
        -    Report  		2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Sri Lanka	  March 30, 2021 
        -    Fact Sheet  		Key Outcomes at the 46th Session of the UN Human Rights Council	  March 24, 2021 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – March 23, 2021	  Jalina PorterMarch 23, 2021 
        -    Press Statement  		Sri Lanka National Day	  Antony J. BlinkenFebruary 3, 2021 
        -    Funding Opportunity Announcement  		DRL Strengthening Civil Society in Sri Lanka	  December 18, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Investment Climate Statements: Sri Lanka	  September 8, 2020 
        -    Report  		2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Sri Lanka	  June 25, 2020 
        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Sri Lanka	  June 24, 2020 

previous page1…56789…11next page

Back to Top
# Lebanon

242 items

        -    Report  		Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Lebanon	  June 24, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Lebanon	  June 10, 2020 
        -    Report  		2019 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Lebanon	  March 11, 2020 
        -    Report  		Lebanon	  July 11, 2019 
        -    Report  		Lebanon	  June 21, 2019 
        -    Report  		Lebanon	  June 20, 2019 
        -    		Lebanon	  April 23, 2019 
        -    Report  		Lebanon	  March 13, 2019 
        -    		Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs: Lebanon Summary	   
        -    Report  		Lebanon	  June 28, 2018 

previous page1…1920212223…25next page

Back to Top
HomeKenya

# Kenya

215 items

        -    TIAS  		Kenya (13112) – Agreement Regarding Grants Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as Amended, and the Furnishing of Defense Articles, Related Training, and Other Defense Services from the US to Kenya	  August 23, 2000 
        -    TIAS  		Kenya (13008) – Investment Incentive Agreement	  December 3, 1998 
        -    		Jesse Nathanael  Aliganga	  August 7, 1998 
        -    DS Memorial  		Jesse Nathanael Aliganga	  August 7, 1998 
        -    TIAS  		Kenya (12864) – Agreement for Cooperation in the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) Program	  June 9, 1997 

previous page1…202122

Back to Top
HomeCanada

# Canada

368 items

        -    Press Statement  		Joint U.S., U.K. and Canadian Sanctions Against Former Lebanese Official and Co-Conspirators in Corruption Scheme	  Matthew MillerAugust 10, 2023 
        -    DipNote: Climate and Environment  		Partnering With U.S. Experts for Better Air Quality	  July 27, 2023 
        -    Report  		2023 Investment Climate Statements: 	  July 26, 2023 
        -    Special Briefing  		Press briefing with Todd D. Robinson, Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs	  Todd D.  RobinsonJuly 10, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		U.S. Applauds Canada’s Repatriation from Northeast Syria	  Matthew MillerJuly 7, 2023 
        -    Press Statement  		Canada Day	  Antony J. BlinkenJuly 1, 2023 
        -    Media Note  		Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Bitter Travel to Canada	  June 27, 2023 
        -    Readout  		Secretary Blinken’s Call with G7 Foreign Ministers and the High Representative of the EU	  June 24, 2023 
        -    Interview  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken with Margaret Brennan of CBS News	  Antony J. BlinkenJune 19, 2023U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission ResidenceBeijing, People’s Republic of China 
        -    Report  		2023 Trafficking in Persons Report: Canada	  June 15, 2023 

previous page1…56789…37next page

Back to Top
# Please wait...

If this message is not eventually replaced by the proper contents of the document, your PDF viewer may not be able to display this type of document.

You can upgrade to the latest version of Adobe Reader for Windows®, Mac, or Linux® by visiting http://www.adobe.com/go/reader_download.

For more assistance with Adobe Reader visit http://www.adobe.com/go/acrreader.

Windows is either a registered trademark or a trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. Mac is a trademark of Apple Inc., registered in the United States and other countries. Linux is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries. ACCEPTED 06-15-00105-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 6/25/2015 2:46:05 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERK
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 11 - 00220 - CV IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF MELISSA LEA G

UNN EVERSE AND JOHAN NES EVERSE On Appeal from the County Court at Law No . 3

Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. 2009 - 549, 549, Honorable Judy C. Parker, Presiding



### July 25 , 2013 ON MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. On June 18, 2013, th e Court issued an opinion and judgment reversing the trial court’s judgment concerning division of marital property and remanding the case . Appellee Melissa Lea Gunn Everse has, on July 23, filed a motion advising us that a ppellant Johannes E verse died on July 10. Her motion also seeks temporary relief pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.10(a) , in the form of a temporary restraining order to preserve the marital property of the parties until the trial court addresses the remand. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(a).2

Making reference to a pending probate proceeding in Lubbock County initiated by Johanne Everse’s son , Stephen Everse, Lea’s motion expresses concern that marital property may be sold, destroyed or distributed. She requests a temporary order restraining herself and anyone acting on behalf of her former husband from certain actions until the trial court can address the remanded issues. As noted, our opinion and judgment in the direct appeal of the divorce decree issued on June 18. No motion for rehearing or en b anc reconsideration was filed. And, as noted, by our judgment we remanded the case to the trial court. Nor is there pending before us an original proceeding. Lea’s citation of appellate rule 52.10 as authority for the requested temporary relief is thus m isplaced. See In re Kelleher, 999 S.W.2d 51, 52 (Tex. App. — Amarillo 1999, orig. proceeding) (before grant of temporary relief under rule 52.10, original proceeding must first be commenced ) . For both those reasons, the motion for temporary relief is denied . Per Curiam
#### I. N. L. Building and Loan Association, a corporation, complainant, *v.*Harry Halpern et al., defendants.

[Decided October 8th, 1929.]

*Mr. Philip J. Schotland,*for the exceptant.

*Mr. Edwoard A. Schilling, contra.*

Backes, V. C.

On this hill to foreclose a mortgage, the master, to whom it was referred, reported a junior judgment, upon which execution issued and levy was made, to be a superior lien on lands to a senior judgment upon which three days later an execution issued which was speedily executed by a sale of the lands. *180The senior judgment creditor contends that although he had lost his priority to the junior judgment creditor, he had again recovered it by promptly following through his execution to a sale. The point is settled against him in *Lippincott*v. *Smith, 69 N. J. Eq. 787.*There it was held by our court of errors and appeals that priority of execution and levy “reverses the priority of the encumbrances [of judgments] no matter in Avhat mode the land may be sold.”

The further argument is that the junior judgment creditor lost his priority of execution because he stayed the execution of the writ in the sheriff’s hands to the delay and in fraud of the senior judgment creditor’s later execution, and that the decision in *Cook*v. *Wood, 16 N. J. Law 254,*obtains. In that case the sheriff was ordered not to execute the writs, and the court treated the executions as not delivered and their operation as suspended, while here nothing was said or done to contravene the mandate of the court. This foreclosure suit intervened and the creditor awaited sale under it. The contention that the failure forthwith to put the sheriff in funds to secure his sales fees was equivalent to a direction not to execute the writ is without merit. Section 62 of the Sheriff’s act *(Comp. Stat p. 4856)*makes sheriffs responsible to counties for all fees and costs of executing writs, and enables them to exact prepayment for their personal protection. The practice has grown up to advance the fees as a prerequisite to a sale, but failure to follow the practice, without more, does not spell a direction not to execute the mandate to the hinderance and fraud of later execution creditors.

The master’s report will be confirmed and exception overruled.