alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
41140.

#### WALTON v. THE STATE.

Decided February 11, 1965.

*Lawson E. Thompson,*for plaintiff in error.

*Kenneth E. Goolsby, Solicitor General,*contra.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

“A ground of a motion for a new trial complaining of the failure of the court to charge without request in accordance with certain quoted language, but which neither has set out therein the evidence which it is contended required a charge in the language quoted nor refers to the place in the record where such evidence may be found is too incomplete to be considered. *Beavers v. State,*33 Ga. App. 370 (2) (126 SE 305); *Allen v. State,*39 Ga. App. 642 (2) (148 SE 167); *Wilcher v. State, 87*Ga. App. 93 (2) (73 SE2d 57); *Norris v. Sikes,*102 Ga. App. 609, 610 (3) (117 SE2d 214); *Beecher v. Farley,*104 Ga. App. 785, 788 (4) (123 SE2d 184).” *Moulder v. State,*108 Ga. App. 588 (1) (134 SE2d 61). Each ground of the defendant’s amended motion for new trial assigns error on the failure of the trial court to charge on involuntary manslaughter but fails to set forth or refer to the place in the record where evidence supporting such proposition can be found. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in overruling such special grounds of the defendant’s amended motion for new trial. The usual general grounds of the defendant’s motion for new trial have been abandoned.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
**
**EXHIBIT 32**

**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 Annual Report of Sabine Royalty Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-K for theannual period ended December 31, 2022 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuantto 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge: 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asamended; and 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Trust. 

ARGENT TRUST COMPANY, TRUSTEE FOR 

SABINE ROYALTY TRUST 

 
  By: /s/    Ron E. Hooper            Ron E. Hooper,Date: February 28, 2023   SVP, Royalty Trust Management
A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Sabine Royalty Trust andwill be retained by Sabine Royalty Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 
**
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 11, 2018

No. 04-18-00449-CR

Alberto M. LOPEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010CR5048

Honorable Catherine Torres-Stahl, Judge Presiding

ORDER

In 2012, Appellant pled nolo contendere to the charge of injury to a child fourteen-yearsof-age or younger, knowingly causing serious bodily injury. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§ 22.04(a)(1) (West Supp. 2017). The trial court fined Appellant $1,500.00 and sentenced him to 

confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Institutional Division for fifteen

years. The trial court imposed the sentence on July 27, 2012.

The record indicates Appellant did not timely file a motion for new trial or any other 

postjudgment motion that would extend the appellate timetable. See TEX. R. APP. P. 22.5, 

26.2(a).

On June 15, 2018, Appellant filed a “Request for a Certificate of Appealability” and 

stated “[n]ew evidence has come into being since my conviction, and I would like a chance to 

argue it.” 

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke a court of appeals’ jurisdiction. Olivo v. 

State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent a timely motion for new trial, a 

defendant’s notice of appeal is timely filed if it is filed within thirty days after (1) the day 

sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or (2) the day the trial court enters an appealable 

order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522. In this case, the appellate record 

shows Appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed.
A late notice of appeal may be considered timely and invoke a court of appeals’ 

jurisdiction if it meets the following requirements:

(1) it is filed within fifteen days of the last day allowed for filing,

(2) a motion for extension of time is filed in the court of appeals within fifteen 

days of the last day allowed for filing the notice of appeal, and 

(3) the court of appeals grants the motion for extension of time. 

Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522; see also Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals, 802 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991) (stating that an out-of-time appeal from a final felony conviction may be 

sought by filing a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal 

Procedure). 

We ORDER Appellant to show cause in writing within TWENTY DAYS of the date of 

this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Olivo, 918 

S.W.2d at 522; Ater, 802 S.W.2d at 243. If Appellant fails to respond as ordered, this appeal will 

be dismissed for want of jurisdiction without further notice. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 11th day of July, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1813 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 

deduction for mortgage insurance premiums. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2007 

Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. 

HERGER, Mr. TANNER, Mr. CAMP of Michigan, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. 

ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. WELLER of Illinois, Mr. 

CROWLEY, Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky, Ms. SCHWARTZ, and Mr. CANTOR) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

permanent the deduction for mortgage insurance premiums. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT DEDUCTION FOR MORTGAGE IN4 SURANCE PREMIUMS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section 

6 163(h)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 

7 to mortgage insurance premiums treated as interest) is 

8 amended by striking clause (iv). 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1813 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 this section shall apply to amounts paid or accrued after 

3 December 31, 2007, and to amounts properly allocable to 

4 any period after such date. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

IN THE MATTER OF: BIRMINGHAM FLIGHT CENTER, INC. Respondent DocketNo. FAA-2014-0867 CaseNo. 2012S0090053 Judge J.E. Sullivan

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT/WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT
Pursuant to a settlementreached by the parties and to the provisions of 14 C.P.R. §13.215, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby withdraws its Complaint dated December 5, 2014:

Respectfully submittedthis 3rd day ofFebruary, 2017. Naomi Tsuda Assistant ChiefCounsel for Enforcement

# By:~ yanr:anders EnforcementDivision, Southern Team 1701 Columbia Ave. College Park, GA 30337 email: ryan.landers@faa.gov Telephone: (404) 305-5200 (main) (404) 305-5206 (direct) (404) 305-5223 (fax) 

# RECEI\/E[) FEB 062017 HEARINGCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on February 3, 2017, the foregoing Notice ofSettlement/Withdrawal of Complaint was filed via Federal Express as follows: Original and One Copy: Federal AviationAdministration 600 Independence Avenue, S.W. Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 Washington, D.C. 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 One Copy: The Honorable J.E. Sullivan Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) East Building Ground Floor Washington, DC 20590 Paul R. Borth Counsel for Birmingham Flight Center, Inc. Barnett & Borth, LLC 800 Waulcegan Road, Suite 200 Glenview, IL 60025
HomeInternational Claims and Investment Disputes...Cases Filed Against the Republic of Peru

# 									Cases Filed Against the Republic of Peru							

Office of the Assistant Legal Adviser for International Claims and Investment Disputes

##### **Kaloti Metals & Logistics, LLC v. The Republic of Peru, ICSID Case No. ARB/21/29**

Kaloti Metals & Logistics, LLC filed claims against the Republic of Peru in connection with law enforcement measures taken in the gold industry. The claimant alleges that Peru violated Articles 10.5 (Minimum Standard of Treatment) and 10.7 (Expropriation and Compensation) of the Trade Promotion Agreement between the United States and Peru.

Find further information and documents concerning this claim.

2023-05-26 U.S. Article 10.20.2 Submission;  U.S. Article 10.20.2 Submission (accessible version) [557 KB]

Tags

ArbitrationPeruTrade Practices

Back to Top
- Office Home
- About Us
- Leadership
- Remarks and Releases
- Key Topics
- Reports
- Contact Us
- Public Meetings

HomeU.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy...Public Meetings – U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

# 									Public Meetings – U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy							

### Official Meeting Minutes

### 2024

**Celebrating 75 Years of ACPD Reporting –  February 26, 2024**

### 2023

**Public Diplomacy and DEIA Promotion –  December 12, 2023**

**The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Public Diplomacy****–  June 14, 2023**

**The Role of Public Diplomacy in Democracy Promotion** –  April 13, 2023

Future(s) of USG Public Diplomacy –  January 25, 2023

### 2022

Public Diplomacy Approaches to Countering Disinformation Effects in Sub-Saharan Africa – September 23, 2022

City Diplomacy as a Form of Domestic Public Diplomacy – June 1, 2022

Field Perspectives on the Practice of Public Diplomacy – February 24, 2022

### 2021

**USAGM and the Future of Public Funded International Broadcasting –**September 17,  2021

Innovative Public Diplomacy Responses to China’s Influence Strategies – June 17, 2021

**Key Issues Facing the Future of American Public Diplomacy – February 11, 2021**

### 2020

Public Diplomacy’s Role in Countering State-Sponsored Disinformation – September 30, 2020

Data Driven Public Diplomacy, Six Years Later – June 23, 2020

**Release of the 2019 ACPD Annual Comprehensive Report on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting – January 23, 2020**

### 2019

Public Diplomacy and the Creation of the Global Public Affairs Bureau – September 4, 2019

Public Diplomacy and the Department of State’s Multi-Year Public Diplomacy Modernization Effort – April 11, 2019

### 2018

December 4, 2018

September 13, 2018

May 8, 2018

March 20, 2018

### 2017

December 8, 2017

September 28, 2017

May 9, 2017

March 16, 2017

### Archives

Archived Meeting Minutes

Tags

Public DiplomacyU.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

Back to Top
OMINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

PR 06-0544 

IN RE PETITION OF BRYAN T. DAVIS FOR 

REINSTATEMENT TO ACTIVE STATUS IN THE 

BAR OF MONTANA 

FILED 

KAR 14 2023 

Bovven 

Clerk Greenvvood of Supreme Court t ritr5rEoRana 

Bryan T. Davis has petitioned for reinstatement to active status in the State Bar of 

Montana. Davis was placed on inactive status by the State Bar of Montana pursuant to 

Rules 3B2, 5, and 12 of the Rules for Continuing Legal Education on September 13, 2022 

as a result of noncompliance with CLE requirements. In accordance with Rule 13 of the 

CLE Rules, Davis has provided a letter from the State Bar certifying that he has now 

completed all CLE requirements "through the reporting year that ended March 31, 2022." 

Davis is willing and able to pay active dues, fees, and the state license tax to the State Bar 

of Montana and comply with any continuing education requirements this Court may 

impose. 

The Petition indicates Davis is actively practicing law in Texas and has been since 

November 6, 2009. Davis has not been suspended, disbarred, or otherwise ineligible to 

practice law in another jurisdiction, is not currently subject to disciplinary proceedings or 

pending disciplinary proceedings in another jurisdiction, has not been charged with a 

criminal offense, accrued delinquent debt or filed for bankruptcy, failed to fulfill the 

obligations of a public office or professional license, or committed any acts or omissions 

while on inactive status that would he sanctionable under the Rules of Professional 

Conduct. Good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of Bryan T. Davis for reinstatement to 

active status in the State Bar of Montana is GRANTED. 

03/14/2023

Case Number: PR 06-0544
The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to the Petitioner and the State 

Bar of Montana. ,/•%_ 

DATED this day of- March, 2023. 

Chief Justice 

Justices
§ 423.553 Effect of leasing of a PDP sponsor's facilities. ( a ) *General effect of leasing.* If a PDP sponsor leases all or part of its facilities to another entity, the other entity does not acquire PDP sponsor status under section 1860D-12(b) of the Act.
( b ) *Effect of lease of all facilities.* ( 1 ) If a PDP sponsor leases all of its facilities to another entity, the contract terminates.
( 2 ) If the other entity wishes to participate in Medicare as a PDP sponsor, it must apply for and enter into a contract in accordance with § 423.502.
( c ) *Effect of partial lease of facilities.* If the PDP sponsor leases part of its facilities to another entity, its contract with CMS remains in effect while CMS surveys the PDP sponsor to determine whether it continues to be in compliance with the applicable requirements and qualifying conditions specified in subpart K of this part.
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

A4A Bob Ireland 10-25-13 

Other/ Additional Information:
Home1987 Treaties and Agreements...OECD (87-1015) – Tax Reimbursement Agreement

# 									OECD (87-1015) – Tax Reimbursement Agreement							

TIAS

Office of Treaty Affairs

October 15, 1987

Taxation:  Tax Reimbursement

Agreement signed at Paris October 15, 1987; entered into force October 15, 1987.

With Annex.
Download attachment						 [861 KB]

Tags

Organization for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentTaxationTreaties

Back to Top
#### State, ex rel. Fast et al., *v.*Board of Commissioners of the County of Wells.

[No. 20,585.

Filed June 23, 1905.]

From Wells Circuit Court; *Edwin C. Vaughn,*Judge.

Action by the State, on the relation of Arthur C. Fast and others, against the Board of Commissioners of the County of Wells. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

*Affirmed.*

*T. E. Ellison,*for appellant.

*Dailey, Simmons & Dailey,*for appellee.

Montgomery, J.

Appellant brought this action against the appellee for a writ of mandate. It is shown by the petition and alternative writ that relators are petitioners for a public drain beginning in Allen county, and extending into the counties of Wells, Huntington and Whitley; that the boards-of commissioners of each of said counties duly appointed viewers upon said ditch, who accepted such appointment, qualified, and entered upon the discharge of their duties as such, and so acted for several months, and in that behalf incurred costs and expenses to the amount of $3,000 for the payment of which relators are liable. That on the 7th day of February, 1905, the three viewers appointed by the board of commissioners of Wells county, without relators’ consent, ceased to act, and filed with the board of commissioners of said county of Wells their resignations as such viewers, which resignations were on said date accepted by said board, and such acceptance spread of record. An alternative writ of mandate was issued, reciting the facts in detail, and requiring such board to show cause why a peremptory writ should not issue commanding it to set aside said order and record made by it accepting the resignations of said viewers, and forward to the board of commissioners of Allen county any and all resignations made to it in said matter.

Appellee demurred for want of facts to the alternative Writ of mandate, and the demurrer was sustained and an exception saved. Relators declined to plead over, and judgment was rendered against them for costs.

The assignment of errors calls into question for our consideration the ruling on this demurrer.

The question sought to be presented by this record is the same as that presented and decided in *State, ex rel.,*v. *Popejoy*(1905), *ante,*177. Upon the authority of that case it must be held that appellee’s demurrer was correctly sustained to the alternative writ of mandate in this case.

The judgment is accordingly affirmed.
- Office
- About Us
- Key Topics
- Programs

HomeScience...Key Topics

# 									Key Topics							

Office of Science and Technology Cooperation

### Science and Technology Agreements

OES/STC facilitates American science collaboration and lays its ground rules, such as the protection of intellectual property, through nearly 60 bilateral agreements and more than 2,000 sub-agreements currently in force. The engagements facilitated by these agreements provide valuable access for American scientists to foreign scientific capabilities, facilities, and expertise, while also exposing other countries to American science procedures, norms, and values. Explore the Treaties and Other International Acts Series.

### Joint S&T Funds

OES officials serve as U.S. representatives on the governing boards for diverse bilateral science and technology funds, including for the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation, U.S.-Israel Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation, U.S.-Egypt Science and Technology Joint Fund, Indo-U.S. Science and Technology Forum, and U.S-India Science and Technology Endowment Fund, and the U.S.-Pakistan Science and Technology Cooperation Program. The joint funds advance shared scientific priorities and strengthen our bilateral relationships. Participation in these activities helps ensure joint research is aligned with broader American foreign policy interests.

### Releases

        - Joint Statement of the United States of America and Australia on Cooperation in Quantum Science and Technology
        - The 16th Japan-U.S. Joint Working-Level Committee Meeting
        - Joint Statement of the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on Cooperation in Quantum Information Sciences and Technologies
        - Joint Statement on U.S. – France Science and Technology Cooperation

## Related Articles

-  											 													Key Topics			
Read more
 

Back to Top
HomeBrought to Justice: Narcotics Rewards Program Targets...Florindo Eleuterio Flores-Hala (Captured)

# 									Florindo Eleuterio Flores-Hala (Captured)							

Narcotics Rewards Program: Brought to Justice

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

**ALIASES:**“Artemio”**DOB:**September 8, 1961**POB:**San Juan de Siguas, Arequipa, Peru**NATIONALITY:**Peruvian**CITIZENSHIP:**Peru**HEIGHT:**5 feet 3 inches**WEIGHT:**140 pounds**HAIR COLOR:**Black**EYE COLOR:**Brown

Founded in 1970 on Communist ideology, the Sendero Luminoso (also known as the ‘Partido Comunista del Peru’) in the 1980s became a notoriously violent terrorist group that controlled large areas of Peru and struck the capital Lima with repeated violent attacks. Following a Government of Peru crackdown in the 1990s, Sendero Luminoso was reduced to only a few hundred rebels confined largely to Peru’s remote coca-producing areas. This weakened Sendero splintered in 2001. Subsequently, two armed Sendero groups remain operating, largely independent of each other, in Peru’s two largest cocaine production zones – the Upper Huallaga Valley and in the Apurimac and Ene River Valley (VRAE). Both factions participated in cocaine trafficking in these areas and engaged in violent attacks against Peruvian security forces.

**Florindo Eleuterio Flores-Hala** was the current leader of the Sendero remnants based in the Huallaga Valley, and oversaw all of its illicit activities. These activities included extortion, bribery, murder, and drug trafficking. The drug trafficking activities of this faction of Sendero included taxes/extortion payments charged to local drug traffickers in exchange for security of coca cultivations, cocaine labs, and shipments made throughout the Monzon and Huallaga Valleys. Furthermore, Flores-Hala was involved in the local cocaine trade in the Huallaga Valley, since he is believed to invest his own and/or Sendero money in drug trafficking ventures with local drug traffickers. Flores-Hala also allegedly used violence against Peruvian National Police officers, other GOP personnel, and the local populous in order to achieve his goals.

Flores-Hala was captured during a Peruvian government operation in February 2012.

Tags

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement AffairsDrug TraffickingNarcoticsPeruRewards for Justice

Back to Top
41287.

#### TAYLOR v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

“Where, as here, a conviction depends entirely upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must be such as to exclude eveiy other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.” *Gibbs v. State,*91 Ga. App. 519 (1) (86 SE2d 369).

The evidence adduced upon the trial of the defendant, charged with possessing nontax-paid liquor, was that no liquor was found in the defendant’s home, but that it was found in a *691plum thicket some 20 or 22 feet from the back steps of his house. There was uncontradicted evidence that the thicket was not on the defendant’s premises and was not owned or rented by him. There was also testimony of other families living within a few feet of the thicket and of such other families using the path through the plum thicket although the arresting officers testified that the path did not go through the plum thicket. Such evidence, under the decision in *Freeman v. State,*84 Ga. App. 757, 759 (67 SE2d 314), and in numerous cases there cited was insufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save the guilt of the accused, and is distinguishable from cases exemplified by *Walker v. State,*90 Ga. App. 183 (82 SE2d 258), and *Harris v. State,*104 Ga. App. 796 (123 SE2d 164), where the evidence showed a path from the defendant’s residence to the liquor and there was no evidence of others using such path. The evidence was insufficient to authorize the verdict and the trial court erred in overruling the defendant’s motion for new trial based on the usual general grounds only.

Argued May 4, 1965

Decided May 13, 1965.

*Rupert A. Brown,*for plaintiff in error.

*Preston M. Almand, Solicitor,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Eberhardt and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Charles HAMILTON.

No. 63088.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 20, 1978.

In re: Charles Hamilton applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied. The application is moot. The appeal has been submitted to this Court.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 May 9, 2008

/s/
Craig A. ToomanCraig A. ToomanExecutive Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial Officer)   32