alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 23, 2009 

s0615 

Order 

 

June 23, 2009 

137659 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137659 

 COA: 286627 

Livingston CC: 93-007670-FC 

JERMELL DARNELL JOHNSON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 26, 2008 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant’s 

motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502(G). 

KELLY, C.J., not participating because she served on the Court of Appeals panel 

that affirmed the defendant’s conviction on direct appeal.
NO. 12-16-00158-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

WILLIE D. BEASLEY, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 173RD 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant attempts to appeal from an order denying his motion for appointment of counsel 

to assist him with his habeas corpus proceedings. As a general rule, an appeal in a criminal case 

may be taken only from a judgment of conviction. See Workman v. State, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1961). However, there are certain narrow exceptions. Wright v. State, 969 

S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.) (listing exceptions). The order Appellant 

complains of is not a judgment of conviction nor does it fall within any exception to the general 

rule. Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal.

On May 31, 2016, this Court notified Appellant that the information received in this 

appeal does not include a final judgment or other appealable order and therefore does not show 

the jurisdiction of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.2. Appellant was further notified that the 

appeal would be dismissed unless the information was amended, on or before June 10, 2016, to

show the jurisdiction of this Court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.3. This deadline has now passed, and 

Appellant has neither shown the jurisdiction of this Court nor otherwise responded to its May 31, 

2016 notice. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.3(a).

Opinion delivered June 15, 2016.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 15, 2016

NO. 12-16-00158-CR

WILLIE D. BEASLEY,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 173rd District Court 

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. A-9192)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the 

appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision 

be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1
------------


                  LETTER TO SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

March 29, 2002

Andersen has represented to us that: The audit for the year ended December 31,
2001 was subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting
and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards, that there was appropriate
continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit, and availability of
national office consultation. Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of
Arthur Andersen is not relevant to this audit.

Konover Property Trust, Inc.

By /s/ Daniel J. Kelly
   --------------------------------------------------------
       Daniel J. Kelly
       Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets and unaudited condensed
consolidated statements of income found on pages 3, 4 and 5 of the Company's
Form 10-QSB for the year to date, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       8,315,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0      
<RECEIVABLES>                                  305,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    498,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,143,000
<PP&E>                                       3,338,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,973,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,930,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                     3,871,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (214,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,973,000 
<SALES>                                        961,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,108,000
<CGS>                                          545,000 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  545,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               691,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,288,000 
<INCOME-TAX>                                   575,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,925,000 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .36 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .36

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for PruTech Research and
                    Development Partnership III and is qualified 
                    in its entirety by reference to such 
                    financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>          
<CIK>             0000794357
<NAME>            PruTech Research and Development Partnership III
<MULTIPLIER>      1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1999

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1999

<PERIOD-END>                    Mar-31-1999

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-Mos

<CASH>                          1,119,007

<SECURITIES>                    34,688

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                1,153,695

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,153,695

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           99,795

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      1,053,900

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,153,695

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                12,363

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                47,246

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (34,883)

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (.77)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
----

# Virtual CD-ROM/Floppy Disk Library

      -  Home
      -  About
      -  Search
      -  List All

1987 census of agriculture, Volume 1, Geographic area series. State data files, county data files (including U.S. totals)

 System Details :

System requirements: Computer system capable of using CD-ROM drive; 640K RAM; if IBM compatible personal computer, requires CD-ROM software such as Microsoft CD-ROM Extensions (version 3.1 or higher), public domain software (EXTRACT) included on disk, but other commercial software packages may used; CD-ROM drive.Disk characteristics: CD-ROM.Written in dBase III+ format.

 Notes :

Title from disk label.Shipping list no.: 91-0043-E."Issued August 1990.""2nd issue, July 1991."ISO 9660 format.

 Subject Headings :

Agriculture -- United States -- Statistics -- DatabasesUnited States -- Statistics -- Databases

 Record Info : 

AHB9497IP(OCoLC)ocm25561799(DGPO)92066944(InU)190959IP(InU)BKR2713NW(InU)BLA6885SE(InU)BLK7669SB(InU)BLY7952FW(InU)AJW3445KO(InU)AJD8190BB

      Indiana University Catalog Information

## C 3.277: AG 8/987/CD/V.1/REV.2

Installation Notes :

No install necessary. The program runs in the "DOS" environment. Start program by clicking the go.bat file. Works fine.

        -  Download :     Browse   

Raw Mets Record

----

IU Bloomington Libraries

           Comments: libgpd@indiana.edu

  			Hosted by the IU Digital Library Program

----

        - Copyright  © 				    
2012
 				The Trustees of  Indiana University
        - Copyright Complaints
        - Libraries Privacy Policy
        - Accessibility Help
Mary L /s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 29, 2014

No. 04-14-00262-CV

Jennifer G. ELLIOT,

Appellant

v.

Mary L. Pena,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-EM5-03919

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court clerk has filed a notification of late record, stating that the appellant has 

failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the clerk’s record and that the 

appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the fee.

We, therefore, ORDER appellant to provide written proof to this court within ten days of 

the date of this order that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made 

to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s fee. If 

appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (allowing dismissal of 

appeal if appellant fails to comply with an order of this court).

_________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 29th day of May, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### § 150.590 What standards must I observe when acting in exempt fiduciary capacities?

You must observe principles of sound fiduciary administration, including those related to recordkeeping and segregation of assets.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

August 5, 2009

Before

RICHARD D. CUDAHY, Circuit Judge

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 08-3287

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 

 v.

JEFFERY DEAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the Southern

District of Indiana, New Albany

Division

No. 4:06-cr-0023-SEB-MGN-14

Sarah Evans Barker, Judge.

O R D E R

It is ordered that the following corrections be made in the opinion of the court dated

July 31, 2009:

Slip opinion page 5 and 6, footnote 3—Footnote 3 is omitted;

Slip opinion page 6, footnote 5—Footnote 5 is omitted.

It is so ordered.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEETS, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,331
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,999
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,788
<INVENTORY>                                     26,591
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,846
<PP&E>                                           9,073
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,492
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,861
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,290
<BONDS>                                         50,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    115,473
<COMMON>                                       128,132
<OTHER-SE>                                   (254,034)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,861
<SALES>                                         63,803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,803
<CGS>                                           50,647
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,488
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,948
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,685)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,685)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,685)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.61)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 1252.1 Enterprise portfolio holding criteria.

The Enterprises are required to comply with the portfolio holdings criteria set forth in their respective Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements with the Department of the Treasury, as they may be amended from time to time.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2663 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2663

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and 
 feasibility of designating Castle Nugent Farms located on St. Croix, 
 Virgin Islands, as a unit of the National Park System, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 8, 2003

 Mrs. Christensen introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                       the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and 
 feasibility of designating Castle Nugent Farms located on St. Croix, 
 Virgin Islands, as a unit of the National Park System, and for other 
                               purposes.

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

SECTION 1. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY REGARDING CASTLE NUGENT FARMS.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
            (1) Castle Nugent Farms, located on the southeastern shore 
        of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, is the largest parcel of 
        privately-held land in the Virgin Islands and has been an 
        operating cattle ranch for 50 years.
            (2) This land has the largest and healthiest fringing coral 
        reef anywhere in the Virgin Islands.
            (3) It consists of Caribbean dry forest and pasturelands 
        with considerable cultural resources including both pre-
        Columbian and post-European settlement.
            (4) Castle Nugent Farms contains a large historic 17th 
        century Danish estate house that sits on over 4 miles of 
        pristine Caribbean oceanfront property.
            (5) In addition to being an area for turtle nesting and 
        night heron nesting, it is the home for the Senepol cattle 
        breed, a unique breed of cattle that was developed on St. Croix 
        in the early 1900's to adapt to the island's climate.
    (b) Study.--The Secretary of the Interior shall carry out a study 
regarding the suitability and feasibility of designating Castle Nugent 
Farms as a unit of the National Park System.
    (c) Study Process and Completion.--Section 8(c) of Public Law 91-
383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)) shall apply to the conduct and completion of 
the study required by this section.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-40806

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

TOMMIE EDWARD WILEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:98-CR-150-1

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

February 16, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Tommie Edward Wiley pleaded guilty to possession with intent

to distribute crack cocaine on October 22, 1998. He appeals the

district court’s two level increase to his offense level for

possession of a dangerous weapon during a drug offense under U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines § 2D1.1(b)(1). According to the

presentence report, a handgun was found in the trunk of a car

from which Wiley sold cocaine in June 1998. Wiley argues that 
No. 99-40806

-2-

there was insufficient evidence connecting him to the June 1998

offense and that the prior drug incident occurred four months

before the drug offense to which he pleaded guilty. 

The district court’s decision to enhance under § 2D1.1(b)(1)

is a factual finding which we review for clear error. United

States v. Castillo, 77 F.3d 1480, 1498 (5th Cir. 1996). Wiley

may be held accountable under § 2D1.1(b)(1) for possessing a

firearm during a drug offense that counted as relevant conduct. 

See United States v. Vaquero, 997 F.2d 78, 85 (5th Cir. 1993);

see also U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, Appendix C, Amendment 394. The

information in the PSR was sufficient to establish that Wiley was

involved in the June 1998 drug offense and that a gun was present

where the drug trafficking occurred. Wiley did not present

evidence refuting the information in the PSR, and the district

court did not err in relying on the PSR to increase Wiley’s

offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(b)(1). See United States v.

Angulo, 927 F.2d 202, 204-05 (5th Cir. 1991). 

AFFIRMED.
## S OUTHEAST 

## E NERGY AND 

## E NVIRONMENT 

## L EADERSHIP 

## F ORUM



### Clean Power Plan Implications for the Southeast:

State Plan Options and Implementation Issues

May 21

- 22, 2015

Courtyard by Marriott

130 Claremont Avenue

Decatur, GA

Thursday, May 21

1:00

- 1:15 pm Welcome & Introductions

Tim Profeta, Director, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions

Courtyard by Marriot, Decatur Room A

1:15

- 3:00 Straw Plan Compliance & Plan Design Tradeoffs

David Hoppock, Senior Policy Associa te, Nicholas Institute for Environmental

Policy Solutions

Decatur Room A

3:00 BREAK

– Decatur Room A

3:15

- 5:00 How Key Interstate Emissions Trading Policy Choices Could Affect Power

Markets

Brian Murray, Director of Environmental Economics, Nicholas In stitute for

Environmental Policy Solutions and David Hoppock

Decatur Room A

5:00

- 5:15 Discussion of Agenda for U.S. EPA Session

Tim Profeta

Decatur Room A

7:00

– 8:30 pm DINNER

Parker’s On Ponce

116 East Ponce de Leon Ave.

Decatur, GA 300302

Friday, May 22

7:30 am BREAKFAST

Courtyard by Marriott, Avondale

8:30

– 8:45 Review of Prior Day’s Discussion and Introduction of EPA Session

Tim Profeta

Cour tyard by Marriot, Henry Oliver Room

8:45

– 10:30 Discussion of Key Implementation Issues and Challenges with U.S. EPA

Moderated by Tim Profeta

Henry Oliver Room

10:30 BREAK

– Pre Function

10:45

– 11:30 Discussion of Key Implementation Issues and Challenges with U.S. EPA

(cont’d)

Henry Oliver Room

11:30

– 12:00 Next Steps and Closing Remarks

Tim Profeta

Henry Oliver Room

12:00 Adjourn
#### § 74.27 How will VA store information?

VA stores records provided to CVE fully electronically on the VA's secure servers. CVE personnel will compare information provided concerning owners against any available records. Any records collected in association with the VIP verification program will be stored and fully secured in accordance with all VA records management procedures. Any data breaches will be addressed in accordance with the VA information security program.

[83 FR 48232, Sept. 24, 2018]
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Ameriton Properties Incorporated

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 3

- 00 811

- CV

Trial court case number: 2012

- 03918

Trial court: 281st District Court of Harris County

It is ordered that Appell ee ’ s Motion for Rehearing is denied

.

Justice’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justice s Higley and Brown

Date: December 9 , 2014