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

**San Antonio, Texas**

Febru ary 27, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00524

- CR

Braulio TIRADO

- MORALES

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 6200 Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s brief in these companion cases was originally due to be filed on January 11,

2019

. After n either t he brief nor a motion for extension of time to file the brief was filed , we notified appellant’s counsel via letter that the brief was late and requested a response by no later than January 28, 2019. Because a ppellant did not respond to our letter or file a brief or motion

for extension of time to file the brief , we ordered a ppellant’s counsel to file a response stating a reasonable explanation for failing to timely file the brief and demonstrat ing the steps being taken to remedy the deficiency. In response to our order, appellant filed in both causes a motion for

extension of time to file appellant’s brief, requesting an additional forty

- five days to file the

brief. We granted the motion, ordered that a ppellant’s brief be filed no later than February 25,

2019 , and advised appellant that f urther requests for extension of time w ill be disfavored. As of the date of this order, appellant has not filed the brief.

Appellant’s attorney is ORDERED to respond to this court in writing within ten days of the date of this order. The response should state a reasonable explanation for faili ng to timely file the brief and demonstrate the steps being taken to remedy the deficiency. If appellant’s attorney fails to file an adequate response within ten days, this appeal will be abated to the trial court for an abandonment hearing, and the trial court will be asked to consider whether sanctions are appropriate. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(2).

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of February, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
§ 1073.201 Applicability and scope. ( a ) *Applicability.* The provisions of this subpart apply to the collection of debts owed to the United States arising out of the activities of, or referred to, the Bureau. This subpart is intended to be consistent with the Federal Claims Collection Standards (31 CFR chapter IX and parts 900 through 904) on administrative offset issued by the Department of Treasury and the Department of Justice.
( b ) *Centralized administrative offset.* ( 1 ) The Director will refer any eligible debt over 180 days delinquent to the Department of the Treasury or a designated debt collection center for collection by centralized administrative offset. The Director may also refer any eligible debt less than 180 days delinquent to the Department of the Treasury for offset.
( 2 ) At least 60 days prior to referring a debt to the Department of the Treasury in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the Director will send notice to the debtor in accordance with the requirements of § 1073.204 of this subpart.
( c ) *Non-centralized administrative offset.* ( 1 ) When centralized administrative offset is not available or appropriate, the Director may collect past-due, legally enforceable debts through non-centralized administrative offset. In these cases, the Director may offset a payment internally or make an offset request directly to a paying agency.
( 2 ) At least 30 days prior to offsetting a payment internally or requesting a paying agency to offset a payment in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the Director will send notice to the debtor in accordance with the requirements of § 1073.204 of this subpart.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, June 27, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, June 27, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A19I0263. JONATHAN SAMUEL EVANS v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

18CR02859
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5
                                                                    ------------


                                  AMENDMENT TO
                  AMENDED AND RESTATED 1987 STOCK OPTION PLAN

     Paragraph 8 of the Amended and Restated 1987 Stock Option Plan of Kent
Electronics Corporation, as amended, shall be amended in its entirety to provide
for transferability of stock options as follows:

     8.  Transferability of Options.  Options shall not be subject to sale,
     assignment or transfer other than by will or by the laws of descent and
     distribution or pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order as defined
     in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; provided, however, that
     the Committee may amend outstanding options to provide for transferability
     of Options, without payment of consideration, to immediate family members
     of the optionee or to trusts or partnerships for such family members.  The
     designation of a beneficiary by an optionee shall not constitute a
     transfer.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Lloyd Adam Toler , Appellant

No. 06

- 22

- 00154

- CR v.

The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the County Court at Law No.
2 of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No.
CR2100144 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice Rambin

, Chief Justice
Stevens and Justice van Cleef participating.

As stated in the Court’s opi nion of this date, we find there was partial error in the
judgment of the court below . Therefore, we modify the trial court’s j udgment by changing the

ent ry under “ F ines ” to “ $100.0 0. ” W e modify the certifie d bill of costs by deleti ng the charge

for “ Court Appointed Attorney F ee , ” changing the “ TOTAL REIMBURSEME NTS ” to $150.00, and changing th e “ G R AND TOTAL ” to $570.00 . As modified, the judgment of the

trial court is affirmed.
We note that the appellant, Lloyd Adam Toler , has adequately indicated his inability to
pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JUNE 16, 2023 BY ORDER OF THE COURT SCOTT E. STEVENS CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
#### MORSE v. UNITED STATES

[59 C. Cls. 139; 270 U. S. 151]

Judgment was rendered in the court below January 21, 1924, and on May 4, 1924, plaintiff’s motion for new trial filed March 19, 1924, was overruled. On May 28, 1924, plaintiff presented a motion for leave to file a motion to amend the findings of fact, which was overruled June 2, 1924. On June 9, 1924, plaintiff presented a motion for leave to file a motion to reconsider and grant a new trial, which was overruled the same day. On September 5, 1924, *753plaintiff made application for an appeal to the Supreme Court, which was allowed by the Court of Claims October 13, 1924. The appeal was dismissed, the Supreme Court deciding:

1. Under Bule 90 of the Court of Claims, after a motion for a new trial has been overruled another can not be made without leave of court.

2. The ninety days allowed by Judicial Code section 243 for appeal to this court from a judgment of the Court of Claims, began to run from the day when that court denied a duly and seasonably filed motion for a new trial, and was not postponed by the subsequent presentation of a motion (which the court likewise denied) for leave to file a further motion for a new trial.

Mr. Chief Justice Taft

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court March 1, 1926.
126 STAT. 384 PUBLIC LAW 112–135—JUNE 21, 2012 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 5883: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012): 

June 5, considered and passed House. 

June 7, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–135 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To make a technical correction in Public Law 112–108. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL CORRECTION. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Public Law 112–108 is amended by striking 

‘‘115 4th’’ and inserting ‘‘208 1st’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by subsection (a) 

shall take effect as if included in the enactment of Public Law 

112–108. 

Approved June 21, 2012. 

Ante, p. 329. 

June 21, 2012 

[H.R. 5883] 


wwoods2 on DSKR6SHH1PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
```

[112th Congress Public Law 126]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[[Page 126 STAT. 369]]

Public Law 112-126
112th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, New York, as the ``Private Isaac T. Cortes 
          Post Office''. <<NOTE: June 5, 2012 -  [H.R. 3413]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PRIVATE ISAAC T. CORTES POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1449 West Avenue in Bronx, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Private Isaac T. Cortes Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Private 
Isaac T. Cortes Post Office''.

    Approved June 5, 2012.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 3413:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012):
            Mar. 5, considered and passed House.
            May 17, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
§ 62.63 Visits to monitor operations and compliance. ( a ) VA has the right, at all reasonable times, to make visits to all grantee locations where a grantee is using supportive services grant funds in order to review grantee accomplishments and management control systems and to provide such technical assistance as may be required. VA may conduct inspections of all program locations and records of a grantee at such times as are deemed necessary to determine compliance with the provisions of this part. In the event that a grantee delivers services in a participant's home, or at a location away from the grantee's place of business, VA may accompany the grantee. If the grantee's visit is to the participant's home, VA will only accompany the grantee with the consent of the participant. If any visit is made by VA on the premises of the grantee or a subcontractor under the supportive services grant, the grantee must provide, and must require its subcontractors to provide, all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of the VA representatives in the performance of their duties. All visits and evaluations will be performed in such a manner as will not unduly delay services.
( b ) The authority to inspect carries with it no authority over the management or control of any applicant or grantee under this part.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 2044)
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-3951

)

VICTORIA SILVA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed November 6, 2019.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for 

Hillsborough County; Mark D. Kiser, 

Judge.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Jeffrey H. Siegal, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellant.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

SILBERMAN, BADALAMENTI, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 189 (Thursday, October 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 50783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23744]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, 
Scientific Advisory Board

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice is published in accordance with Section 10(a)(2) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The topic of 
the meeting on October 20-22, 2009, is to review new start research 
requesting Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program 
(SERDP) funds in excess of $1M. This meeting is open to the public. Any 
interested person may attend, appear before, or file statements with 
the Scientific Advisory Board at the time and in the manner permitted 
by the Board.

DATES: The meeting will be held: Tuesday, October 20, 2009, from 8:30 
a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Wednesday, October 21, 2009, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m.; and Thursday, October 22, 2009 from 8:30 a.m. to 12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the SERDP Office Conference 
Center, 901 North Stuart Street, Suite 804, Arlington, VA 22203.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jonathan Bunger, SERDP Office, 901 
North Stuart Street, Suite 303, Arlington, VA or by telephone at (703) 
696-2126.

    Dated: September 21, 2009.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E9-23744 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
§ 1215.4 General prohibition. ( a ) No employee may produce records or information, or provide any testimony related to the records or information, in response to any demand or request without prior written approval to do so from the Director or the Director's designee.
( b ) Any person or entity that fails to comply with this part may be subject to the penalties provided in 18 U.S.C. 641 and other applicable laws. A current employee also may be subject to administrative or disciplinary proceedings.
HomeReportsBureau of Economic and Business Affairs2023 Fiscal Transparency Report…El Salvador

# 					2023 Fiscal Transparency Report: El Salvador			

 In this section										

                -  Government-by-Government Assessments: El Salvador  

## Government-by-Government Assessments: El Salvador 

During the review period, the government published its enacted budget and end-of-year report online within a reasonable period, although it did not publish its executive budget proposal within a reasonable period.Information on debt obligations, including for state-owned enterprises, was widely and easily accessible to the public, including online.The budget broke down expenditures by ministry or government agency.Budget documents provided a substantially complete picture of the government’s revenues and expenditures.Publicly available budget documents included allocations to and earnings from state-owned enterprises.The government broke down expenditures to support executive offices.The government produced and publicly issued revised budget estimates when actual revenues and expenditures did not reasonably correspond to those in the enacted budget.The government maintained off-budget accounts that were not audited.The supreme audit institution did not meet international standards of independence.It did not publish timely audit reports that covered the entire annual executed budget.

El Salvador’s fiscal transparency would be enhanced by:

-  Making its executive budget proposal publicly available within a reasonable period;
-  Eliminating off-budget accounts or subjecting them to adequate oversight and audit;
-  Ensuring the supreme audit institution meets international standards of independence and publishes audits that cover the entire annual executed budget.

## View report by:

### On This Page

                    -  Government-by-Government Assessments: El Salvador  

Tags

Bureau of Economic and Business AffairsBureau of Western Hemisphere AffairsDivision for International Finance and DevelopmentEl Salvador

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
EXHIBIT 99.1

                   CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     SPORTS ENTERTAINMENT ENTERPRISES, INC.
                      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB of Sports Entertainment Enterprises, Inc. for the period ending
March 31, 2003:

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

     (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of Sports
Entertainment Enterprises, Inc.





/s/ Voss Boreta
Voss Boreta
Chief Executive Officer
May 15, 2003


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Sports Entertainment
Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Sports Entertainment Enterprises,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.
Exhibit 32.1

 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 906 OF THE
                               SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


     In  conjunction  with the annual  report of Sharps  Compliance  Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the years ended June 30, 2005 and 2004,  as filed
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof,  I, Burton J.
Kunik,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Chairman  of the  Board 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, to the best of my knowledge that

     (1)  The Form  10-KSB  report for the years  ended June 30,  2005 and 2004,
          filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on September 14,
          2005,  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15(d)
          of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the Form  10-KSB  report for the years
          ended  June  30,  2005  and  2004  fairly  presents,  in all  material
          respects,  the financial condition and results of operations of Sharps
          Compliance Corp.



      By:  /s/ BURTON J. KUNIK


      Burton J. Kunik
      Chairman of the Board of Directors
      Chief Executive Officer


                                      F-22
42262.

#### STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT v. MARTIN.

Argued September 6, 1966

Decided September 23, 1966.

Eberpiardt, Judge.

In this condemnation case there are two enumerations of error on appeal, one covering what amounts to the general grounds in a motion for new trial, and the other excepting to the evidence of a witness as to consequential damages on the ground that the witness was basing his opinion upon what he had recently seen as to the effect of the improvement on the remaining lands, whereas the damages to be recovered must be those which resulted at the time of the taking, more than two years prior to the time when the witness viewed it.

1. The verdict was within the range of the testimony, and the first enumeration of error is without merit.

2. It does not appear that in testifying as to consequential damage the witness was basing his opinion upon the value of the land when he had viewed it a short time prior to the trial rather than the value at the time of taking, but that his opinion as to the *extent*of the damage was affected by what he. had recently seen. We can see no error in this. While it may be said that the damage was done at the time of the taking, it is a matter of common knowledge that the taking precedes the construction of the improvement and often it is not possible to know the extent of the consequential damage until construction has been completed or for some time thereafter.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*

*343
      *Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Richard L. Chambers, Assistant Attorney General, Robert L. Royal, Harry Lawrence, Deputy Assistant Attorneys General,*for appellant.

*T. L. Shanahan, J. Beverly Langford, Warren Akin,*for appellee, >
# Official Journal L 62/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 62 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 651 March 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 62

English edition

Legislation

Volume 651 March 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/342 of 21 December 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the specific selection criteria and the details of the process for selecting cross-border projects in the field of renewable energy | 1 |
| | * | Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/343 of 24 January 2022 establishing a fisheries closure for common sole in areas 7h, 7j and 7k for vessels flying the flag of France | 9 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/344 of 24 February 2022 amending Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1035 to take into account certain eco-innovation CO2 savings for the calculation of the average specific CO2 emissions of Daimler AG and the Daimler AG pool
  (notified under document C(2022) 964)

   (
  1
  ) | 12 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/342 of 21 December 2021 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1153 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the specific selection criteria and the details of the process for selecting cross-border projects in the field of renewable energy

1

*

Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/343 of 24 January 2022 establishing a fisheries closure for common sole in areas 7h, 7j and 7k for vessels flying the flag of France

9

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/344 of 24 February 2022 amending Implementing Decision (EU) 2020/1035 to take into account certain eco-innovation CO2 savings for the calculation of the average specific CO2 emissions of Daimler AG and the Daimler AG pool
  (notified under document C(2022) 964)

   (
  1
  )

2

2

(notified under document C(2022) 964)

1

12

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.