alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-91,211-01

EX P ARTE JEREMY DILLON S P ENCER, Appli cant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. CR-13- 8384 IN THE 1 DISTRICT COURT ST F ROM SAN AUG USTINE COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant pleade d g uilty to b u rgl ar y of a habitation and was sentenc ed to thirteen y ear s’ imprisonment. The Twelfth Court of Appea ls dismiss ed his appea l for want of jurisdiction. Spence r v. Stat e , No. 12-19-00310-CR (Tex

. App.—Ty ler Oct. 17, 2019)(not designa ted for publication). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk f

orwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. Applicant contends that his ple a was involuntary beca use trial counsel failed to inve stiga te his a libi and failed to inve stiga te his c ompetence and mental health history

. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Hill v. Lockhart , 474 U.S. 52 (1985); Ex parte Argent , 393 S.W .3d 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Acc ording ly , the re cord should be de veloped. The trial2

court is the appr opriate f

orum for f

indings of f

act. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)

. This Court rema

nded this application J une 17, 2020, order ing the trial court t o o btain a response from counsel. Howeve r, the trial court has sent the Cou rt finding s without obtaining a response from counsel. The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim. I n developing the rec ord, the trial court may use any means set out in Article 11.07, § 3(d). I f the trial court elec ts to hold a hear ing, it shall deter m i n e wh et h er Appl icant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wants to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint counsel to repr esent him at the hear ing. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. I f counsel is appointed or reta ined, the trial court shall immediately

notify this Court of counsel’s name

. The trial court shall make supplemental finding s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether trial counsel’s perf

o rm ance was defic ient and Applicant would have insisted on a trial but for counsel’s alleged d ef

i ci en t perf

ormanc e. The trial court may make any other finding s and conclusions that it deems appr opriate in re sponse to Applicant’s c laims. The trial court shall make findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw within ninety d ay s from the date of this order

. The district cler k shall then immediately forwa rd to this Court the trial court’s finding s and conclusions and the rec ord develope d on rema nd, including, among other things, aff idavit s , motions, objections, proposed finding s and conclusions, order s, and transcr ipts from hear ings and depositions. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). Any extensions of time must be reque sted by the trial cour

t and obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: De cembe r 9, 2020 Do not publish
MISCONDUCT OF JURY.

#### W. H. JANES v. JACOB HOEHN.

Evidence of Jurors Incompetent to Show.

Affidavits of jurors will not be received to prove their own misconduct in adopting-an improper way of arriving at a verdict.

C. E. Pennewell, for plaintiff in error.

Robinson & White, for defendant in error.

The jury agreed to each assess the amount of damages, the added total to be divided by twelve, and agreed to and did return the quotient as their verdict. This, was proved only by the affidavits of jurors. .

Held: The evidence was inadmissible to prove such misconduct, Farrer v. State, 2 O. S., 54.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC McDonough Properties, L.L.C. M & R Holdings, L.L.C., Tri-D, L.L.C., and Col. Frank Barnet Complainant v. City ofWetumpka Respondent FAADocketNo. 16-12-11

NOTICE OF EXTENSION OF TIME

This matter is before the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) based onthe abovereferenced complaint, filed in accordance with FAA Rules of Practicefor Federally-Assisted AirportEnforcementProceedings, 14 CPRpart 16. Pursuant to part 16, subpart B, the date by whichthe Final Agency Decision will be issued in this matter is hereby extended to November 25, 2014. An extension oftime is necessary and an appropriate for a fair and complete determination in this case.

Eduardo A. Angeles Associate Administrator

for Airports DateCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFYthat on 

## OCT l 0 ,2014, I caused to be placed in the United States mail (first class mail, postage paid) a true copy ofthe Notice ofExtension ofTime, addressed to: Counsel for Complainant Raymond Veatch, Esq. P. 0. Box 302 Tracys Landing, MD 20779 Email: manager(alinternationalacs.com Wade Ramsey, Esq. Ramsey & Associates, LLC P. 0. Box 382012 Birmingham, AL 35238 Email: waderamsev\alaol.com Counsel for Respondent Pablo 0. Ntiesch, Esq. Anjali G. Pate, Esq. Spiegel & McDiarmid, LLP 1333 NewHampshire Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20039 Email: pablo.nuesch(a)spieglmcd.com Hand Deliveredto: FAAPart 16 Airport Proceedings Docket FAA Airport Compliance and Management Analysis, AC0-100 FAA Southern Region, AS0-600
#### John J. Fox, Appellant, *v.*George Muller et al., Respondents.

Appeal from an order denying a motion to sever this action made by plaintiff and that judgment be entered against the defendants Muller and Bendit.

William T. Matthies, for appellant.

Hoffman & Hoffman, for respondent Muller.

Max D. Steuer (Abraham S. Levy, of counsel), for respondent Bendit. - .

Ooylay, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion to sever the action after an interlocutory judgment entered upon a demurrer to separate defenses and a trial and verdict as to the remaining issues.

*801We think the plaintiff has mistaken the meaning of the sections of the Code on which he relies for a reversal of the order, and that the aid of sections 456 and 1205 may not he successfully invoked in his favor.

The order appealed from must, therefore, he affirmed, with costs, upon the opinion of the court below at Special Term.

Fitzsimons, Ch. J., concurs.

Order affirmed, with costs.
Exhibit 31.1  Certifications  I, Mike McKeever, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Carvana Auto Receivables Trust 2021-P2 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d- 18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following  unaffiliated parties: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association and Computershare Trust Company, National  Association.  Date: March 26, 2024  /s/ Mike McKeever  Mike McKeever  President  Carvana Receivables Depositor LLC  (senior officer in charge of securitization)
#### § 74.28 Who may examine records?

Personnel from VA, CVE, and its agents, including personnel from the SBA, may examine records to ascertain the ownership and control of the applicant or participant.

[83 FR 48232, Sept. 24, 2018]
§ 80.12 Grantee reporting requirements. ( a ) *Quarterly reports.* All grantees must submit to VA quarterly reports, as required in the NOFO, within 30 days after the last day of each quarter based on the Federal fiscal year—with the first report due not later than 30 days after the last day of the quarter for which a grant is paid under this part—which includes the following information: ( 1 ) Record of time and resources expended in outreach activities and the methods used;
( 2 ) The number of participants served, including demographics of this population;
( 3 ) Types of assistance provided;
( 4 ) A full accounting of VSTAGP grant funds received from VA and used or unused funds during the quarter; and
( 5 ) Results of routine monitoring and any project variations.
( b ) *Final report.* Per 2 CFR 200.344, all grantees must submit to VA, not later than 120 days after the last day of the grant period (as defined in the NOFO) for which a grant is awarded under this part, a final report that meets the requirement set forth in the NOFO. The last quarterly performance and financial report received will be recorded as the final report. The financial report shall be noted as “Final” on the SF-425 Federal Financial Report.
( c ) *Additional reports.* VA may request additional reports to allow VA to assess project accountability and effectiveness. In addition, recipients are required to participate in a VA-led evaluation if selected, which may be carried out by a third-party on behalf of VA.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2900-0928 (Quarterly Performance Reports), 4040-0014, and 2900-0929 (Additional Reports)) (Authority: Pub. L. 116-315, sec. 4304; 2 CFR 200.203)
Boiling point determination of NCS:

The PMN NCS is a52Yo (w/w)solution of the NCS in sodium hydroxide solution. While the NCS is

stable at alkaline pH (>10) the NCS is very labile to acid hydrolysis and can not be isolated as a pure

chemical substance at essentially neutral pH.

Standard boiling point determination was done using the classic method of boiling point

determination. A25 ml test tube was filled with the22 ml of the NCS. An closed class tube was inverted

(closed side up) and secured with a rubber band to a precision thermometer (gradation 0.1"C). The

thermometer glass tube was then placed into the NCS liquid such that aboutTS% of the glass tube was

covered by the NCS. The entire apparatus was lowered into a glycerol heating bath such that the level

of the glycerol was higher than that of the NCS contained in the test tube. Heat was applied to the

glycerol heating bath. When a steady stream of bubbles was observed from the glass tube, heat was

removed. The temperature at which the NCS was sucked into the closed tube was found to be LL1..2"C.

The measured boiling point of the NCS is LLL.Z"C
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2490 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a pilot program 

for the mobile biometric identification in the maritime environment of 

aliens unlawfully attempting to enter the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2007 

Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. SOUDER, and Mr. 

DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct 

a pilot program for the mobile biometric identification 

in the maritime environment of aliens unlawfully attempting to enter the United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BIOMETRIC IDENTIFICATION OF UNAUTHOR4 IZED ALIENS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of Homeland Secu6 rity shall conduct a pilot program for the mobile biometric 

7 identification in the maritime environment of aliens unlaw8 fully attempting to enter the United States. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 2490 IH

1 (b) REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall ensure 

2 that the pilot program is coordinated with other biometric 

3 identification programs within the Department of Home4 land Security and shall evaluate the costs and feasibility 

5 of expanding the capability to all appropriate Department 

6 of Homeland Security maritime vessels. 

7 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There 

8 are authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 to carry 

9 out this section for fiscal year 2008. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
§ 42.47 Limitations. ( a ) The notice of hearing with respect to a claim or statement must be served in the manner specified in § 42.8 of this part within 6 years after the date on which such claim or statement is made.
( b ) If the defendant fails to file a timely answer, service of a notice under § 42.10(b) of this part shall be deemed a notice of hearing of purposes of this section.
( c ) The statute of limitations may be extended by agreement of the parties.
41874.

#### WOOLF v. THE STATE.

Nichols, Presiding Judge.

Carl J. Woolf, Sr., was indicted and convicted of abandonment. Thereafter his motion for new trial based upon the usual general grounds only was overruled and by bill of exceptions, filed within thirty days after the judgment denying his motion for new trial, he appealed and enumerated as error therein the judgment denying him a new trial. The State filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as not being in accordance with the Appellate Practice Act of 1965 (Ga. L. 1965, p. 18 et seq., p. 240 et seq.). The sole argument made in this court by the appellant is that venue for the prosecution was not in Baldwin County. *Held:*

1. Under the decisions of the Supreme Court in *Mobley v. State,*221 Ga. 716 (146 SE2d 735) and *Brawner v. State,*221 Ga. 680 (146 SE2d 737), and of this court in *Chambliss v. Hall,*113 Ga. App. 96 (147 SE2d 334), the appeal in. the form of a bill of exceptions, but filed in the time required by the Act of 1965, supra, was not subject to the State’s motion to dismiss.

2. “In Georgia the venue of the prosecution for the offense of abandonment is in the county where the minor child first *413becomes dependent upon persons other than the parent for support.” *Fairbanks v. State,*105 Ga. App. 27, 30 (123 SE2d 319).

Argued March 8, 1966

Decided March 16, 1966

Rehearing denied March 31, 1966

*James W. Watts, Harbin M. King,*for appellant.

*George D. Lawrence, Solicitor General,*for appellee.

3. Under the decision in *Fairbanks v. State,*supra, and the numerous cases there cited, the venue in the case sub judice was in Baldwin County, where the defendant’s minor children first became dependent upon persons other than the parent, and the fact that the children’s parents had lived previously in another county or that the mother had moved them to Baldwin County over the protest of the father would not change the venue of the prosecution.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Hall and Deen, JJ., concur.*
#### § 67.22 Additional conditions.

The Administrator may, with respect to any grant awarded under this subpart, impose additional conditions prior to or at the time of any award when in the Administrator's judgment such conditions are necessary to assure or protect advancement of the approved project, the interest of the public health, or the conservation of grant funds.
Fw:Published discussion of the Xact Multi Published discussion of the Xact Multi Published discussion of the Xact Multi -Metals CEMS performance Metals CEMS performance Metals CEMS performance 

while at Lilly ..... while at Lilly .....Jacksonville IT Jacksonville IT Jacksonville IT 3,2011

Jeff Ryan Jeff Ryan to: David Ogulei, Sarah Marshall, Charles Hall, 

Dan Bivins, Kim Garnett 09/26/2012 03:38 PM

Info from Rick Lambert to share with you.

____________________________________________________

 Jeff Ryan

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

 Office of Research and Development

 National Risk Management Research Laboratory

 Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division

 Air Pollution Technology Branch

 109 T.W. Alexander Drive

 Mail Drop E305-01

 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

 (919) 541-1437 (919) 541-0554 FAX

 "And all this science, I don't understand." 

 "It's just my job 5 days a week"

 Elton John - Rocket Man

____________________________________________________

----- Forwarded by Jeff Ryan/RTP/USEPA/US on 09/26/2012 04:36 PM -----

From: Richard H Lambert <lambert_richard_h@lilly.com>

To: Jeff Ryan/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Michael L Foster <foster_michael_l@lilly.com>

Date: 09/26/2012 12:49 PM

Subject: Published discussion of the Xact Multi-Metals CEMS performance while at Lilly..... 

Jacksonville IT3, 2011

Jeff,

I thought I would forward several recent publications by Lilly regarding our positive experience with the 

Xact multi-metals CEMS. We can discuss this and any questions you or Region V have on the 

conference call, but I thought the attached publications would provide documentation around our 

experience. I believe we (Lilly) have been very straight forward on our positive experience with the Xact 

and have published this quite a bit.

Once you get an idea of what day(s) and/or times next week work, I will schedule the call.

Rick
Rick Lambert

Eli Lilly

Engineering Tech Center

Phone: 317-276-1820

Cell Phone: 317-319-0523

Email: rhlambert@lilly.com

IT3 Paper on T149 CPT.ppt IT3 Paper on T149 CPT.pptIT3 2011 Lambert.ppt IT3 2011 Lambert.ppt

Execution of Comprehensive Performance Test using Particulate rev 1.doc
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5

       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        NOV-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                           DEC-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                             MAY-31-1996
<CASH>                                       676,000
<SECURITIES>                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                              5,764,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 300,000
<INVENTORY>                                8,144,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          14,786,000
<PP&E>                                    20,620,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            12,900,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            23,190,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      4,378,000
<BONDS>                                            0
<COMMON>                                     466,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                11,154,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              23,190,000
<SALES>                                   26,428,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          26,428,000
<CGS>                                     23,851,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             23,851,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           902,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (4,324,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                0
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                              (4,324,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (.97)
        



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifton GUEVARA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 86-4256.

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 12, 1986.

William G. Nader, Love, Rigby, Dehan, Love & McDaniel, Shreveport, La. (Court appointed), for defendant-appellant.

D.H. Perkins, Jr., Joseph S. Cage, Jr., U.S. Atty., Shreveport, La., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before GEE, RUBIN, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Guevara appeals his convictions of firearms offenses and witness intimidation. Most of his complaints — those of the stop and search of his automobile, of the validity of a search warrant for his motel room, of the composition of the venire, of unexpected unwelcome evidence which his attorney ploughed up in the course of cross-examination, and of the sufficiency of evidence to support one of his convictions — do not merit discussion. As to these, we affirm, without opinion. Local Rule 47.6. Because of its singularity, we discuss the remaining point briefly.

The jury retired with thirteen members, the judge having overlooked discharging the alternate juror — who, the court found, was present when the foreman was elected (apparently by acclamation) but not when any discussion of the case had commenced. Her presence as a supernumerary was discerned before discussion began and she was discharged. The court found that her presence had no effect on the actions of the jury in convicting Guevara and that there was no reasonable probability that her presence affected their discussion or vote. These fact findings are not clearly erroneous, and they satisfy the demands of our existing authority. *United States v. Allison,*481 F.2d 468 (5th Cir.1973). The convictions are

AFFIRMED.