alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismiss and Opinion Filed September 14, 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05

- 23

- 00563

- CR
EBBY DEWAYNE WADE , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 397th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 073026
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Carlyle, Smith, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Kennedy Ebby Dewayne Wade brings this appeal , but we lack jurisdiction becaus e there is no judgment or other appealable order in the record.
The clerk’s record filed July 21, 2023, shows appellant was indicted for
murder on February 22, 2021

. On May 24, 2023, appellant filed his “ Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Seeking a R ight to Proceed Pro Se and Bond
Reduction. ” On June 5, 2023, appellant filed a notice of appeal stating the trial
court’s “denial, rejection and/or failure to conduct and hold the lawfully proper

W rit/ E vident iary hearing is in violation of” appellant’s co nstitutional and statutory– 2

–

rights. On July 19, 2023, the official court reporter for the 397th District Court informed this Court that no hearings had been held regarding appellant’s “complaint.” The r ecord contains no ruling on appellant’s application f or habeas

corpus. On July 25, 2023, this Court sent appellant a letter notif ying appellant that absent a ruling by the trial court on the application for writ of habeas corpus, we had no jurisdiction over this appeal. We requested appellant to file a le tter brief by August 14, 2023, addressing whether the trial court had signed an appealable order
in this case. Appellant has not responded to our letter. We have no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal unless the trial court has entered a judgment or appealable order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(b), 26.2(a)(1); State v. Sanavongxay , 407 S.W.3d 252, 259 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Henderson v. State , 153 S.W.3d 735, 735

– 36 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2005, no pet.). Because appellant has

not identified any judgment or other appealable order before this Court, we conclude

we lack jurisdiction over th is appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss th is appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

230563f.u05 Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b) /Nancy E. Kennedy/ NANCY KENNEDY JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

EBBY DEWAYNE WADE, Appellant
No. 05

- 23

- 00563

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 397th Judicial District Court, Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 073026. Opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy. Justices Carlyle and Smith participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 14 th day of September 2023.
§ 1033.101 Authority, purpose, and organization. ( a ) *Authority.* The regulation in this part is issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) pursuant to the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA), Public Law 111-203, tit. X, 124 Stat. 1955.
( b ) *Purpose.* This part implements the provisions of section 1033 of the CFPA, in part, by utilizing industry standards developed by standard-setting bodies recognized by the CFPB.
( c ) *Organization.* This part is organized as follows: ( 1 ) Subpart A establishes the authority, purpose, organization, and definitions applicable to this part, and is reserved for other purposes.
( 2 ) Subpart B is reserved.
( 3 ) Subpart C is reserved.
( 4 ) Subpart D is reserved.
( 5 ) Appendix A provides instructions for how a standard-setting body would apply for CFPB recognition.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 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 on Form 10-QSB/A of Boundless Motor Sports Racing, Inc.
and subsidiaries (the Company) for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned President and
Principal Accounting and Financial Officer of the Company each hereby certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §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) or 15(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. Date:
March 2, 2005
    
    /s/ Paul A. KrugerPaul A Kruger, Chief Executive OfficerDate:
March 2, 2005
    
    /s/ Glenn A. JacksonGlenn A. Jackson, Chief Accounting Officer
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

#### § 3.56 [Reserved]
# L_2013254EN.01S00302.xml

| 26.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 254/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 254/s3

---

NOTE TO READERS — WAY OF REFERRING TO ACTS

As of 1 July 2013 the way of referring to acts has changed.

During a transitional period this new practice will coexist with the previous one.

---
#### §§ 20.304-20.399 [Reserved]
Table 4. SCR Capital Cost Survey Results 

Reference 

Capital, MW ($/kW, 

2006 Basis)

Observed 

($/kW)

Hoskins, 2003 128 (400 MW) 80-160 

Cichanowicz, 

2004 

84 (600-899 MW) to 

128 (100-399 MW) 56-185 

Marano, 2006 118 (>900) to 167 (<300 

MW)

Most costs 

reported to be 

within 100-200

ERG 2008 227 207 - 267

Average Low-High Cost Observation 
Cost Basis: 2002. 15 of 20 reported unit costs exceeded 

$100/kW. Weak relationship of unit cost and scale. 

Cost Basis: 2003. For four categories of generating 

capacity, the least cost units were among the first 

installed.

Cost Basis: 2005. “Units with a capacity of 600 to 900 

MW appear to be more difficult to retrofit than those in 

other size ranges.”

Cost Basis: 2007 

(http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/haze/docs/ergMemo.pdf)
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

#### § 3.711 Improved pension elections.

Except as otherwise provided by this section and § 3.712, a person entitled to receive section 306 or old-law pension on December 31, 1978, may elect to receive improved pension under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 1521, 1541, or 1542 as in effect on January 1, 1979. Except as provided by § 3.714, an election of improved pension is final when the payee (or the payee's fiduciary) negotiates one check for this benefit and there is no right to reelection. Any veteran eligible to make an election under this section who is married to a veteran who is also eligible to make such an election may not receive improved pension unless the veteran's spouse also elects to receive improved pension.

(Authority: Sec. 306(a)(1) of Pub. L. 95-588, 92 Stat. 2497)

[46 FR 11661, Feb. 10, 1981]
§ 1008.107 Minimum annual license renewal requirements. ( a ) For an individual to be eligible to renew a loan originator license as required under § 1008.103(f), a state must require the individual: ( 1 ) To continue to meet the minimum standards for license issuance provided in § 1008.105; and
( 2 ) To satisfy annual continuing education requirements, which must include at least 8 hours of education approved by the NMLSR. The 8 hours of annual continuing education must include at least: ( i ) 3 hours of Federal law and regulations;
( ii ) 2 hours of ethics (including instruction on fraud, consumer protection, and fair lending issues); and
( iii ) 2 hours of training related to lending standards for the nontraditional mortgage product marketplace.
( b ) A state must provide that a state-licensed loan originator may only receive credit for a continuing education course in the year in which the course is taken, and that a state-licensed loan originator may not apply credits for education courses taken in one year to meet the continuing education requirements of subsequent years. A state must provide that an individual may not meet the annual requirements for continuing education by taking an approved course more than one time in the same year or in successive years.
( c ) An individual who is an instructor of an approved continuing education course may receive credit for the individual's own annual continuing education requirement at the rate of 2 hours credit for every one hour taught.
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37605

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DARYL EUGENE RAYMOND,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 694

Filed: November 3, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of three years, for driving under the influence of alcohol 

and/or drugs, a repeated offense, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Daryl Eugene Raymond pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol and/or 

drugs, a repeated offense. Idaho Code §§ 18-8004 and 18-8005(7). The district court sentenced 

Raymond to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. 

Raymond appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive 

sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
2

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Raymond’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
**
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGEACT OF 1934,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, William M. Brown, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Andretti Acquisition Corp.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) [Omitted]; 

(c) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 
Date: March 17, 2022  By: /s/ William M. Brown   **William M. Brown**   **Chief Financial Officer**   **(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)**
 

 
2 

**
#### § 74.12 What must a concern submit to apply for VIP Verification Program?

Each VIP Verification applicant must submit VA Form 0877 and supplemental documentation as CVE requires. All electronic forms are available on the VIP database web pages. From the time the applicant dispatches the VA Form 0877, the applicant must also retain on file, at the principal place of business, a complete copy of all supplemental documentation required by, and provided to, CVE for use in verification examinations. The documentation to be submitted to CVE includes, but is not limited to: Articles of Incorporation/Organization; corporate by-laws or operating agreements; shareholder agreements; voting records and voting agreements; trust agreements; franchise agreements, organizational, annual, and board/member meeting records; stock ledgers and certificates; State-issued Certificates of Good Standing; contract, lease and loan agreements; payroll records; bank account signature cards; financial statements; Federal personal and business tax returns for up to 3 years; and licenses.

(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection requirements in this section under control number 2900-0675)

[83 FR 48231, Sept. 24, 2018]
#### James MANN *v.*RAY LEE SUPPLY

75-343

535 S.W. 2d 65

Opinion delivered April 12, 1976

*Evelyn I. Drake,*for appellant.

No brief for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

In this suit upon a $454.96 open account the trial court entered a default judgment against the appellant, for his failure to answer interrogatories propounded by the plaintiff. For reversal it is argued that the *566statute relied upon in the court below does not apply to interrogatories and that the court erred in entering judgment without notifying the defendant that a trial was to be held.

The appellant had filed a general denial. The plaintiff’s nine interrogatories were not answered within the 15 days allowed by the statute, which *does*apply to interrogatories. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 28-355 (Repl. 1962). The plaintiff then obtained an order directing the defendant to respond to the interrogatories within 10 days “and upon Defendant’s failure to so respond he shall be subject to the consequences set forth in Ark. Stat. Ann. 28-359.” The interrogatories were still not answered. More than 10 days later the court, apparently without further notice, entered an order finding that the defendant had failed and refused to answer the interrogatories within the 10 days and awarding a default judgment to the plaintiff.

The appeal is without merit. A party who has been warned of the consequences of default is not entitled to a second notice that would add nothing to the first, else the progression of notices would never end. For instance, when a defendant is served with a summons warning him to answer within a specified time, under the penalty of the complaint’s being taken as confessed, his failure to answer entitles the plaintiff to judgment. *Pyle v. Amsler,*227 Ark. 785, 301 S.W. 2d 441 (1957); *Walden*v. *Metzler,*227 Ark. 782, 301 S.W. 2d 439 (1957); *Alger*v. *Beasley,*180 Ark. 46, 20 S.W. 2d 317 (1929).

Here the court’s first order, explicitly authorized by § 28-359 (a), pointedly warned the defendant that his failure to respond within 10 days would subject him to the consequences set forth in that statute. Subparagraph (b) (2) (iii) of the section authorizes the court to enter judgment by default against a disobedient party. We see no need for still a second notice to a recalcitrant defendant. Of course, as we noted in *Walden*v. *Metzler, supra,*the entry of judgment did not foreclose the possibility of relief for unavoidable casualty or the like. Here, however, the defendant simply filed a notice of appeal, with no hint of any reason for his continued refusal to obey the court’s unmistakable order.

Affirmed.
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2022 Fiscal Transparency Report…South Sudan

# 					2022 Fiscal Transparency Report: South Sudan			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: South Sudan 

## Government-by-Government Assessments: South Sudan

There was no budget enacted for the fiscal year beginning July 2021.  During the review period, the government did not publish an executive budget proposal, enacted budget, or end-of-year report within a reasonable period.  Allocations to and earnings from the only major state-owned enterprise, the national oil company, were described in budget documents.  Information on debt obligations, including state-owned enterprise debt, was not publicly available.  The government maintained off-budget accounts not subject to civilian public oversight.  However, military and intelligence budgets were subject to civilian public oversight.  Information in budget documents was not reliable.  Historically, when there is an enacted budget, actual revenues and expenditures did not reasonably correspond to the budget, and the government did not issue revised budget estimates.  The supreme audit institution did not meet international standards of independence and did not audit the budget.  The government specified in law or regulation but did not appear to follow in practice the criteria and procedures for awarding natural resource extraction licenses and contracts.  Basic information on natural resource extraction awards was not publicly available.

South Sudan’s fiscal transparency would be improved by:

- Publishing an executive budget proposal, enacted budget, and end-of-year report within a reasonable period;
- Publishing substantially complete information on debt obligations within a reasonable period;
- Publishing timely audits of the major state-owned enterprise;
- Reporting state-owned enterprise debt;
- Eliminating off-budget accounts or subjecting them to adequate oversight and audit;
- Producing and publishing a supplemental budget when actual revenues and expenditures do not correspond to those in the enacted budget;
- Ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence;
- Publishing timely and substantive audit reports;
- Following procedures for natural resource extraction contracts and licenses and awards; and
- Making basic information on natural resource extraction awards publicly available.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: South Sudan 

Tags

Bureau of African AffairsBureau of Economic and Business AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentSouth Sudan

Back to Top

                - White House
                - USA.gov
                - Office of the Inspector General
                - Archives
                - Contact Us

follow us
FacebookXInstagramYouTubeFlickrGovDelivery

              - Privacy Policy
              - Accessibility Statement
              - Copyright Information
              - FOIA
              - No FEAR Act

## U.S. Department *of* State

#### The Lessons of 1989: Freedom and Our Future
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5
<MULTIPLIER>     1
       
<S>                                              <C>       
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS      
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Jun-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                   Jul-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                     Dec-31-1996
<CASH>                                                242077
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          49655
<ALLOWANCES>                                           19731
<INVENTORY>                                            25026
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      301498
<PP&E>                                                472222
<DEPRECIATION>                                      (436560)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        446270
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  53074
<BONDS>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                               42805
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                            350391
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          446270
<SALES>                                               538543
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      553178
<CGS>                                                 188383
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                         188383
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      342695
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        22100
<INCOME-TAX>                                            3315
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    18785
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                           18785
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           .004
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           .004
        

</TABLE>