alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00270-CR

EX PARTE Timothy CAMPBELL

From the County Court at Law No. 13, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 484926

Honorable Crystal D. Chandler, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 29, 2015

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

This is an accelerated appeal. Timothy Campbell has filed a notice of appeal, stating that 

he is appealing the denial of his pre-trial application for writ of habeas corpus seeking release 

because of delay. Appellant states that relief was denied by the trial court on April 14, 2015. 

However, the clerk’s record has now been filed and does not reflect that the trial court has ruled 

on Campbell’s application for writ of habeas corpus. 

Appellate courts do not have jurisdiction to review a denial of an application for a writ of 

habeas corpus. Ex parte Hargett, 819 S.W.2d 866, 868 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). They can only 

review a ruling on the merits of the claim. Id. The clerk’s record does not indicate that the trial 

court has considered the merits of Campbell’s application for writ of habeas corpus. It therefore 

appears that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. On June 27, 2015, we ordered Timothy Campbell 
04-15-00270-CR

- 2 -

to show cause on or before July 1, 2015, why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. No response has been filed. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Since the Government has already located these videotapes, it admits that obtaining 1

them will not cause any unfair disruption or burden on its day-to-day activities. The Government’s

(continued...)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MOHAMMED AL ADAHI, :

:

Petitioner, :

:

v. : Civil Action No. 05-280 (GK)

:

BARACK OBAMA, et al., :

:

Respondents. :

AMENDED ORDER

Petitioner Al Adahi has moved to compel Respondent to produce videotapes of three forced

extractions of Petitioner from his cell at Guantanamo Bay. Since the filing of this Motion on June

8, 2009, the Government has informed Petitioner of the existence of videotapes of three additional

extractions. Respondents seek to use a number of statements made by Petitioner against him at his

habeas corpus hearing to be held on Monday, June 22, 2009. No counsel, either for the Petitioner

or the Government, has seen the videotapes. Consequently, it is impossible for any counsel to make

representations as to whether they are or are not exculpatory. Petitioner argues that there are reasons

to believe that the actions of the Forced Cell Extraction Teams (“FCE Teams”) have in the past been

abusive, violent, and inhumane. See Exh. A to Petitioner’s Motion. In this case, one of the forced

extractions occurred approximately 15 days before Petitioner Al Adahi gave a very inculpatory

statement to Government interrogators. Consequently, the videotapes may be exculpatory, in which

case they would fall squarely within paragraph I.D.1 of the Case Management Order. Therefore, the

videotapes must be produced so that this determination can be made.1
(...continued) 1

concern that an order to compel production of the videotapes in this case might “open the door” to

other detainees to request such evidence, is unpersuasive. Each merits judge will make his or her

own determination on the basis of the specific facts presented if such a motion is made.

Since this is a six-day bench trial, the tapes may be played at a later point in the trial, 2

after the conclusion of Petitioner’s case, if they are deemed exculpatory.

-2-

WHEREFORE, it is this 18th day of June, 2009, hereby

ORDERED, that Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Production of IRF Videotapes is granted,

and the videotapes discussed must be produced by Friday, June 19, 2009, unless counsel are able to

agree to a different schedule.2

/s/ 

Gladys Kessler

United States District Judge

Copies via ECF to all counsel of record
#### § 1.935 Consideration of tax consequences to the Government.

In negotiating a compromise, VA will consider the tax consequences to the Government. In particular, VA will consider requiring a waiver of tax-loss-carry-forward and tax-loss-carry-back rights of the debtor.

(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3711; 38 U.S.C. 501, 3720)

[69 FR 62198, Oct. 25, 2004]
§ 17.904 Review and appeal process. ( a ) This section applies only to legacy claims.
( b ) For purposes of §§ 17.900 through 17.905, if a health care provider, child, or representative disagrees with a determination concerning provision of health care or with a determination concerning payment, the person or entity may request reconsideration. Such request must be submitted in writing (by facsimile, mail, or hand delivery) within one year of the date of the initial determination to the Health Administration Center (Attention: Chief, Benefit and Provider Services). The request must state why it is believed that the decision is in error and must include any new and relevant information not previously considered. Any request for reconsideration that does not identify the reason for dispute will be returned to the sender without further consideration. After reviewing the matter, including any relevant supporting documentation, a benefits advisor will issue a written determination (with a statement of findings and reasons) to the person or entity seeking reconsideration that affirms, reverses, or modifies the previous decision. If the person or entity seeking reconsideration is still dissatisfied, within 90 days of the date of the decision he or she may submit in writing (by facsimile, mail, or hand delivery) to the Health Administration Center (Attention: Director) a request for review by the Director, Health Administration Center. The Director will review the claim and any relevant supporting documentation and issue a decision in writing (with a statement of findings and reasons) that affirms, reverses, or modifies the previous decision. An appeal under this section would be considered as filed at the time it was delivered to the VA or at the time it was released for submission to the VA (for example, this could be evidenced by the postmark, if mailed).
Note to § 17.904 :
The final decision of the Director will inform the claimant of further appellate rights for an appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101(2), 1802-1803, 1811-1813, 1831)
(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0219) [68 FR 1010, Jan. 8, 2003, as amended at 76 FR 4250, Jan. 25, 2011; 81 FR 19891, Apr. 6, 2016; 87 FR 43748, July 22, 2022]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CLARIDGE
HOTEL AND CASINO CORPORATION'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000730409
<NAME> CLARIDGE HOTEL AND CASINO CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      11,768,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,948,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   680,000
<INVENTORY>                                    331,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            30,073,000
<PP&E>                                      45,564,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,654,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             142,767,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       42,537,000
<BONDS>                                     85,179,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                (17,858,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               142,767,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            96,695,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               57,201,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            36,107,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               179,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,248,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,040,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,040,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,040,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.41)
        


</TABLE>
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2278 

To restore the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to issue regulations 

on marketing and advertising to children. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2007 

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To restore the authority of the Federal Trade Commission 

to issue regulations on marketing and advertising to children. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Children’s Health Fed5 eral Trade Commission Authority Restoration Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. 

7 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— 

8 (1) over 12 million children and adolescents, 

9 ages 2 through 19, are overweight, a rate that has 

10 tripled in the last 40 years; 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2278 IH

1 (2) overweight children have a more than 70 

2 percent chance of being overweight adults; 

3 (3) type 2 diabetes, a disease that is mainly as4 sociated with adults, has become widespread in chil5 dren in recent years; 

6 (4) children are obese in part because they 

7 watch too much television, with each child on aver8 age watching over 2 hours each day; 

9 (5) the congressionally chartered Institute of 

10 Medicine found extraordinary growth in new food 

11 products targeted to children, from just 52 new 

12 product introductions in 1994 to close to 500 in 

13 2005; 

14 (6) an estimated $15 billion was spent on junk 

15 food marketing in 2005; 

16 (7) in the late 1970s, the Federal Trade Com17 mission recommended banning television advertising 

18 directed at children under the age of 8 after re19 search indicated that marketing to young children 

20 was unfair because they do not understand the per21 suasive intent of advertising, but was never granted 

22 the authority to do so by Congress; and 

23 (8) a recent Institute of Medicine report found 

24 that the Federal Trade Commission should be grantVerDate Aug 31 2005 20:23 May 11, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2278.IH H2278

jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2278 IH

1 ed the authority to regulate advertising directed at 

2 children. 

3 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act is to restore 

4 the authority of the Federal Trade Commission to issue 

5 regulations that restrict unfair or deceptive marketing or 

6 advertising of foods and beverages to children under the 

7 age of 18 years. 

8 SEC. 3. AUTHORITY TO REGULATE MARKETING AND AD9 VERTISING TO CHILDREN. 

10 Section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 

11 U.S.C. 57a) is amended by striking subsection (h). 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21
- 6315

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. LESLIE EARLE ALVERSON , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. ( 6:17

- cr - 00074

- BHH

- 1 )

Submitted : May 14, 2021 Decided: May 21, 2021

Before NIEMEYER , KING , and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Leslie Earle Alverson , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Leslie Earle Alverson appeals the district court’s o rder denying his motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We review a district court’s denial of a motion for compassionate release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble , 992 F.3d 326, 329 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Alverson , No. 6:17

- cr - 00074

- BHH

- 1 (D.S.C. Feb. 16 , 202 1 )

. See United States v. High , __ F.3d __, 2021 WL 1823289 (4th Cir. May 7, 2021) (holding that the district court need not expressly address each of the movant’s arguments, but must provide a sufficient explanation to allow for meaningful appellate review of its decision)

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process. AFFIRMED
#### § 21.6517 [Reserved]
Exhibit
      32.1


**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the quarterly report of Bel Fuse Inc (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Daniel Bernstein, President and Chief
      Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
      as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented
      and consolidated result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.





Dated:
      November 13, 2006





By: /s/
      Daniel Bernstein


Daniel
      Bernstein, President


and
      Chief
      Executive Officer
§ 17.125 Where to file claims. Generally, VA must preauthorize VA payment for health care services provided in the community when such care is provided in a State as that term is defined in 38 U.S.C. 101(20). ( a ) Where VA payment for such services has not been authorized in advance, claims for payment for such health care services provided in a State should be submitted to the VA medical facility nearest to where those services were provided.
( b ) Claims for payment for hospital care and outpatient services authorized under § 17.35(a) and provided in Canada must be submitted to Veterans Affairs Canada, Foreign Countries Operations Unit, 2323 Riverside Dr., 2nd Floor, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A OP5.
( c ) All other claims for payment for hospital care and outpatient services authorized under § 17.35(a) and provided outside a State must be submitted to the Foreign Medical Program, P.O. Box 469061, Denver, CO 80246-9061.
[83 FR 29448, June 25, 2018]
**Appendix 2.**Processing of Raw Data Collected for 16 streamgage reference marks and 1 National Geodetic Survey cooperative base network control station using Global Navigation Satellite Systems 

Data for 16 streamgage reference marks and 1 National Geodetic Survey cooperative base network control station were processed by scientists from Natural Resources Canada and the U.S. Geological Survey using different methods.  There are separate folders for processing file outputs from each agency.  Processing files are best viewed using a text program, such as Notepad or Notepad++.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 48575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22971]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial 
Research Special Emphasis Panel; Review of DE-PAR-09-182 R03 
Applications.
    Date: October 27, 2009.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Marilyn Moore-Hoon, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Dental and 
Craniofacial Research, 6701 Democracy Blvd., Rm. 676, Bethesda, MD 
20892-4878, 301-594-4861, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#026f6d6d70676f6370426c6b6661702c6c6b6a2c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8d5d7d7caddd5d9caf8d6d1dcdbca96d6d1d096dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 16, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-22971 Filed 9-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40874 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus GALVINO DOMINGUEZ-TREVINO Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-173-1

-------------------- February 15, 2001 Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Galvino Dominguez-Trevino pleaded guilty to being illegally present in the United States after having been previously deported. His sentence was enhanced because his prior deportation occurred following an aggravated felony conviction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He argues that, under Apprendi v. New Jersey , 120 S. Ct. 2348, 2362 (2000), the indictment in his case was deficient because it failed to allege that his prior deportation followed a conviction for an aggravated felony under § 1326(b).No. 00-40874 -2- Dominguez-Trevino’s argument is without merit given the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Almendarez-Torres , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). The Court in Apprendi did not overrule its holding in Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 120 S. Ct. at 2362- 63; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000) , petition for cert. filed , (U.S. Jan. 26, 2001)(No. 00-8299). AFFIRMED.
#### § 20.1003 Rule 1003. Hearings on reconsideration.

After a motion for reconsideration has been allowed, a hearing will be granted if the issue under reconsideration was considered on a docket for cases that may include a hearing, and an appellant requests a hearing before the Board. The hearing will be held by a Member or Members assigned to the reconsideration panel. A hearing will not normally be scheduled solely for the purpose of receiving argument by a representative. Such argument should be submitted in the form of a written brief. Requests for appearances by representatives alone to personally present argument to a Member or panel of Members of the Board may be granted if good cause is shown. Whether good cause has been shown will be determined by the presiding Member.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7102, 7103, 7105(a))

[61 FR 20453, May 7, 1996, as amended at 84 FR 191, Jan. 18, 2019]
§ 14.604 Filing a claim. ( a ) Each person who inquires as to the procedure for filing a claim against the United States, predicated on a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs acting within the scope of his or her employment, will be furnished a copy of SF 95, Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death. The claimant will be advised to submit the executed claim directly to the Regional Counsel having jurisdiction of the area wherein the occurrence complained of took place. He or she will also be advised to submit the information prescribed by 28 CFR 14.4 to the extent applicable. If a claim is presented to the Department of Veterans Affairs which involves the actions of employees or officers of other agencies, it will be forwarded to the Department of Veterans Affairs General Counsel, for appropriate action in accord with 28 CFR 14.2.
( b ) A claim shall be deemed to have been presented when the Department of Veterans Affairs receives from a claimant, his or her duly authorized agent or legal representative, an executed SF 95, or other written notification of an incident, together with a claim for money damages, in a sum certain, for damage to or loss of property or personal injury or death: *Provided, however,* That before compromising or settling any claim, an executed SF 95 shall be obtained from the claimant.
( c ) A claim presented in compliance with paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section may be amended by the claimant at any time prior to final Department of Veterans Affairs action or prior to the exercise of the claimant's option under 28 U.S.C. 2675(a). Amendments shall be submitted in writing and signed by the claimant or his or her duly authorized agent or legal representative. Upon the timely filing of an amendment to a pending claim, the Department of Veterans Affairs shall have 6 months in which to make a final disposition of the claim as amended and the claimant's option under 28 U.S.C. 2675(a) shall not accrue until 6 months after the filing of the amendment.
(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 1346(b)(1), 2401(b), 2671-2680; 38 U.S.C. 512, 515; 28 CFR part 14, appendix to part 14)
[42 FR 41414, Aug. 17, 1977, as amended at 61 FR 27784, June 3, 1996; 64 FR 47112, Aug. 30, 1999]