alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of A ppeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED
April 26, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 04-51087

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff - Appellee

v. LUIS ROBERTO TOVAR-MARTINEZ, also known as Francisco Calderon-Juarez, also known as Emilio Gomez-Perez
Defendant - Appellant

_____________________ No. 04-51088

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee

v. LUIS ROBERTO TOVAR-MARTINEZ, also known as Francisco Calderon-Juarez
Defendant - Appellant

--------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (04-CR-886) (04-CR-1439)

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

Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

_______________ *Pursuant to 5 t h Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4.IT IS ORDERED that the Appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate

the sentence is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellee’s unoppos ed motion

to remand the case t o the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, El Paso Division for re sentencing is

granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellee’s unopposed

alternative motion to extend time to file the Appellee’s brief

until fourteen (14) day s from the Court’s denial of the

Appellee’s motion to vacate and motion to remand is denied as

moot.
Cite as 2017 Ark. 30

No. CV-16-1011

TONY A. HICKMAN

PETITIONER

V.

WENDY KELLEY, DIRECTOR, 

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTION

RESPONDENT

Opinion Delivered February 9, 2017

PRO SE MOTION FOR BELATED 

APPEAL OF ORDER 

[LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. 

39CV-16-40]

HONORABLE RICHARD L. PROCTOR, 

JUDGE

MOTION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Tony A. Hickman is incarcerated in a unit of the Arkansas Department of 

Correction located in Lee County. On April 25, 2016, he filed in the Lee County Circuit 

Court a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, seeking release from custody. On May 2, 

2016, an order was entered dismissing the petition on the ground that Hickman did not 

state a basis for issuance of the writ. 

No appeal was taken from the May 2, 2016 order. Now before us is Hickman’s pro 

se motion seeking to proceed with a belated appeal. Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure

–Civil 4(a) (2016) requires that a notice of appeal be filed within thirty days of the date an 

order is entered. Here, the thirty-day period to file a timely notice of appeal ended June 1, 

2016. Hickman’s motion was filed here on November 10, 2016.

While a habeas proceeding is a civil matter, a petitioner may seek to proceed with a 

belated appeal of a ruling on a petition for postconviction relief, which includes the denial 

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS.
Cite as 2017 Ark. 30

2

of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Sullivan v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 88 (per curiam); see 

also Wesley v. Harmon, 2010 Ark. 21, at 2. However, a belated appeal will not be allowed 

absent a showing by the petitioner of good cause for the failure to comply with proper 

procedure by filing a timely notice of appeal and perfecting the appeal to this court. Wesley, 

2010 Ark. 21, at 2. This court has consistently held that the burden to conform to 

procedural rules applies even where the petitioner proceeds pro se, as all litigants must bear 

the responsibility of conforming to the rules of procedure or demonstrating good cause for 

not so conforming. McDaniel v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 107, at 2 (per curiam). The pro se 

appellant receives no special consideration on appeal. Id. at 3. This court has made it 

abundantly clear that it expects compliance with the rules of this court so that appeals will 

proceed as expeditiously as possible. Day v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 189, at 3 (per curiam). 

As his sole ground to permit a belated appeal, Hickman states that his petition for 

writ of habeas corpus had merit. He offers no reason for not filing a timely notice of appeal. 

Hickman has not stated a ground to grant a belated appeal because a mere statement that 

the underlying pleading had merit does not constitute a showing of good cause for the 

failure to abide by procedural rules. Burgess v. State, 2010 Ark. 34, at 2 (per curiam) (holding 

that the merit of the underlying petition was not at issue when determining whether a 

petitioner who failed to conform to procedural rules should be permitted to proceed with 

a belated appeal); see also Perry v. State, 2010 Ark. 84 (per curiam).

Motion denied.
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4172 — Barclays/Tuya)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 53/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

(2)OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.

----
#### RAY CONSOLIDATED COPPER COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES

May 25, 1925.

[59 C. Cls. 686; 268 U. S. 373]

Judgment, was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was *affirmed,*the Supreme Court deciding:

1. The term “ capital stock ” has no fixed meaning in taxing statutes, and must be interpreted in each case by reference to the context, the nature, purpose and history of the statute, and by other aids to construction.

2. The revenue act of 1918 provides: “ Every domestic corporation shall pay annually a special excise tax with respect to carrying on or doing business equivalent to $1.00 for each $1,000 of so much of the fair average value of its capital stock for the preceding year ending June 30 as is in excess of $5,000. In estimating the value of the capital stock, the surplus and undivided profits shall be included.” *Held:*

(a) That “capital stock” here means the entire potentiality of the corporation to profit by the exercise of its corporate franchise; and the method for ascertaining the value, not being prescribed, is left to the sound discretion of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, subject only to the obligation to consider every relevant fact.

(b) The net fair value of the corporate assets is clearly relevant; and adoption of this, rather than the value of the outstanding shares of stock as evinced by the average prices at which the shares were sold on the stock exchange, was not arbitrary nor an abuse of discretion.

Mr. Justice BRANDeis

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court
LAWAN PALUMBO

VS.

The State of Texas

TO THE COURT' OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

P.O. Box 12308

AUSTIN, Tl-XAS 78711

No.

X

X

X

X

X

X The State of Texas

In the Court of Criminal Appeals of

RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

MAY 29 2015

AbelAcosta,Clerk

Pro Se Appellant's Motion to Extend Time to File PDR

To The HonorableJudges Of The Court Of Criminal Appeals:

I.

The First Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in cause number 01-13-

01072-CR on April 16, 2015.

II.

The PDR in this case was therefore due no later than May 16, 2015.

III.

In compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 68.2(c), this motion for

extension, which is being maiJed on May 28, 2015, is timely filed, since it is within 15

days after the original deadline for the PDR. FILED IN

COURT OFCRIMINAL APPEALS

MAY 29 2015

Abel Acosta, Clerk
IV.

Appellant requests this extension because she needs time to file apro se PDR.

V.

Appellant requests an extension of 60 days, which is necessary so that the PDR

can be thoroughly written and timely filed. This motion is not made for the purpose

of delay.

Lawan Paulmbo

1871 Lee Street

DesPlaines, 111. 60018

Certificate of Service

By my signature below, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the

above has been sent to the Harris County District Attorney's Office by mail to:

Harris County District Attorney's Office

Appellate Division

1201 Franklin, 6th Floor

Houston, TX 77002

.awan Palumbo
WESS FIRMLY TO SEAL

PRESS FIRMLY TO SEAL
Opinion filed October 16, 2020

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

____________

No. 11-20-00202-CR

____________

JAIME RAMIREZ-VALLES, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 22418B

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant entered into a plea agreement with the State. Pursuant to that plea 

agreement, Appellant pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony offense of possession 

of methamphetamine and true to one enhancement allegation. The trial court 

assessed Appellant’s punishment, in accordance with the terms of the plea 

agreement, at confinement for seven years. We dismiss the appeal.

This court notified Appellant by letter that the trial court had certified that this 

is a plea bargain case in which Appellant has no right of appeal. See TEX. R.
2

APP. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d); see also TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.02 (West 

2018). We requested that Appellant respond and show grounds to continue the 

appeal, but we have not received a response from Appellant.

Rule 25.2(a)(2) provides that, in a plea bargain case in which the punishment 

does not exceed the punishment agreed to in the plea bargain, “a defendant may 

appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on 

before trial, (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal, or (C) where the 

specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute.” TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 

Subsections (A), (B), and (C) are not applicable here. We note that Rule 25.2 does 

not permit a plea-bargaining defendant to appeal matters related to the voluntariness 

of the plea bargain—unless the defendant has obtained the trial court’s permission 

to appeal. See Cooper v. State, 45 S.W.3d 77, 83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001); 

Carender v. State, 155 S.W.3d 929, 931 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.).

The documents on file in this appeal reflect that Appellant entered into a plea 

bargain, that his punishment was assessed in accordance with the plea bargain, and 

that he waived his right of appeal. The trial court certified that Appellant has no 

right of appeal. Both the plea agreement and the trial court’s certification were

signed by Appellant, Appellant’s trial counsel, and the judge of the trial court. The

documents on file in this court support the trial court’s certification. See Dears v. 

State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613–14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we must 

dismiss this appeal without further action. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); Chavez v. State, 

183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
3

This appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

October 16, 2020

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.1

Willson, J., not participating.

1

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.
# C_2022271EN.01000901.xml

| 14.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 271/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/9

---

NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

(2022/C 271/08)

The European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) is organising the following open competition:

EPSO/AST/153/22 – Heads of administration (AST 4) in EU Delegations

The competition notice is published in 24 languages in
  Official Journal of the European Union
  C 271 A of 14 July 2022
  .

Further information can be found on the EPSO website: https://epso.europa.eu/

---
# CA2022093EN.01000201.xml

| 28.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 93/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 93/2

---

Notice amending Publication of a vacancy for the function of the Chair of the Single Resolution Board – COM/2022/20074

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 43 A of 28 January 2022
  )

(2022/C 93 A/02)

On page 10, ‘Closing date’, first paragraph:

| for: | ‘The closing date for registration is 25 February 2022, 12.00 noon Brussels time, following which registration is no longer possible.’, |
| --- | --- |

for:

‘The closing date for registration is 25 February 2022, 12.00 noon Brussels time, following which registration is no longer possible.’,

| read: | ‘The closing date for registration is 11 March 2022, 12.00 noon Brussels time, following which registration is no longer possible.’. |
| --- | --- |

read:

read:

‘The closing date for registration is 11 March 2022, 12.00 noon Brussels time, following which registration is no longer possible.’.

---
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2649 

AN ACT 

To make amendments to the Reclamation Projects 

Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2649 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Lake Hodges Surface 

3 Water Improvement and Reclamation Act of 2008’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROJECT AUTHORIZATION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Reclamation Wastewater and 

6 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102– 

7 575, title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by 

8 inserting after section 16ll the following: 

9 ‘‘SEC. 16ll. LAKE HODGES SURFACE WATER IMPROVE10 MENT AND RECLAMATION PROJECT. 

11 ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The Secretary, in coopera12 tion with the Olivenhain Municipal Water District, Cali13 fornia, is authorized to participate in the design, planning, 

14 and construction of projects to treat, reclaim, and reuse 

15 impaired surface water from Lakes Hodges in San Diego 

16 County, California. 

17 ‘‘(b) COST SHARE.—The Federal share of the costs 

18 of the projects authorized by this section shall not exceed 

19 25 percent of the total cost. 

20 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION.—The Secretary shall not provide 

21 funds for the operation or maintenance of a project au22 thorized by this section.’’. 

23 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

24 in section 2 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and 

25 Adjustment Act of 1992 is amended by inserting after the 

26 item relating to section 163ll the following: 
3 

•HR 2649 EH

‘‘Sec. 163ll. Lake Hodges surface water improvement and reclamation 

project.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 20, 2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2649 

AN ACT 

To make amendments to the Reclamation Projects 

Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6987

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RANDY GEAN WILLIAMS, a/k/a Malik Strong,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (2:99-cr-00116-JBF-2)

Submitted: August 14, 2008 Decided: September 23, 2008

Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randy Gean Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman,

Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Randy Gean Williams appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by

the district court. United States v. Williams, No. 2:99-cr-00116-

JBF-2 (E.D. Va. May 6, 2008). We grant Williams’ motion to

supplement the record pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 28(j). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### § 1233.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to implement the Safety and Soundness Act by requiring each regulated entity to report to FHFA upon discovery that it has purchased or sold a fraudulent loan or financial instrument, or suspects a possible fraud relating to the purchase or sale of any loan or financial instrument. In addition, each regulated entity must establish and maintain internal controls, policies, procedures, and operational training to discover such transactions.
#### § 1209.21 Conduct of examination.

Nothing in this part limits or constrains in any manner any duty, authority, or right of FHFA to conduct or to continue any examination, investigation, inspection, or visitation of any regulated entity or entity-affiliated party.
August 26, 1997 

       Securities and Exchange Commission 
       450 Fifth Street, N.W. 
       Washington, D.C. 20549 

            Re:  Vitro Diagnostics, Inc. 
                    Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending July 31, 1997
                    SEC file no.  0-17378 

       Dear Sir or Madam:

       Transmitted herewith through the EDGAR system is Form 10-QSB for the 
quarter ended July 31, 1997 for Vitro Diagnostics, Inc.  Should you have 
any questions or comments concerning this matter please contact the 
undersigned at 303-794-2000.



       Sincerely, 



       Roger Hurst 
       President 


<PAGE>
# C_2022237EN.01000101.xml

| 20.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 237/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2022/C 237/01)

Last publication

OJ C 222, 7.6.2022

Past publications

OJ C 213, 30.5.2022

OJ C 207, 23.5.2022

OJ C 198, 16.5.2022

OJ C 191, 10.5.2022

OJ C 171, 25.4.2022

OJ C 165, 19.4.2022

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
§ 1208.43 Procedures. Unless the procedures described in § 1208.42 are used, prior to collecting any debt by administrative offset or referring such claim to another agency for collection through administrative offset, FHFA shall provide the debtor with the following: ( a ) Written notification of the nature and amount of the debt, the intention of FHFA to collect the debt through administrative offset, and a statement of the rights of the debtor under this section;
( b ) An opportunity to inspect and copy the records of FHFA related to the debt that are not exempt from disclosure;
( c ) An opportunity for review within FHFA of the determination of indebtedness. Any request for review by the debtor shall be in writing and shall be submitted to FHFA within 30 calendar days of the date of the notice of the offset. FHFA may waive the time limits for requesting review for good cause shown by the debtor. FHFA shall provide the debtor with a reasonable opportunity for an oral hearing when: ( 1 ) An applicable statute authorizes or requires FHFA to consider waiver of the indebtedness involved, the debtor requests waiver of the indebtedness, and the waiver determination turns on an issue of credibility or veracity; or
( 2 ) The debtor requests reconsideration of the debt and FHFA determines that the question of the indebtedness cannot be resolved by review of the documentary evidence, as for example, when the validity of the debt turns on an issue of credibility or veracity. Unless otherwise required by law, an oral hearing under this subpart C is not required to be a formal evidentiary hearing, although FHFA shall document all significant matters discussed at the hearing. In those cases where an oral hearing is not required by this subpart C, FHFA shall make its determination on the request for waiver or reconsideration based upon a review of the written record; and
( d ) An opportunity to enter into a written agreement for the voluntary repayment of the amount of the claim at the discretion of FHFA.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  1.
    
    this Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2008 fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    the information contained in this Form 10-Q for the period ended October 31, 2008
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Thor Industries, Inc.
 DATE: December 1, 2008
    /s/ Wade F. B. ThompsonWade F. B. ThompsonChairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer    (principal executive officer)
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

N o. 04

- 14

- 00781

- CV

CITY OF SHAVANO PARK

, Appellant

v.

ARD MOR, INC. , Texas Ardmor Properties, L.P., and Texas Ardmor Management, LLC, Appellees

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 10796 Honorable Richard Price, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE MARTINEZ , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

We withdraw our opinion and judgement dated July 29, 201 5. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is DENIED.

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, (1) the trial court’s order denying appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction with respect to appellees’ request that the trial court declare

Ordinance No. O

- 2014

- 014 void is AFFIRMED; (2) the trial court’s order denying appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction with respect to appellees’ equal protection claim and appellees’ ultra vires claim is REVERSED and judgment dismissing those claims is RENDERED in favor o f appellant; and (3) the trial court’s order denying appellant’s plea to the jurisdiction with respect to appellees’ request that the trial court declare the Development and Annexation Agreement void is REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED for further procee dings consistent with this opinion.

It is ORDERED that costs are assessed against the party that incurred them.

SIGNED October 28 , 2015.

____________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 191 (Monday, October 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 51128]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23941]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Docket 20-2009 and 22-2009]


Foreign-Trade Zones 29 and 203

Applications for Subzone Authority

Dow Corning Corporation and REC Silicon
Extension of Comment Period
    The comment period for the applications for subzone status at the 
Dow Corning Corporation (Dow Corning) facilities in Carrollton, 
Elizabethtown and Shepherdsville, Kentucky (74 FR 21621-21622, 5/8/09) 
and at the REC Silicon facility in Moses Lake, Washington (74 FR 25488-
25489, 5/28/09) is being extended to October 21, 2009 to allow 
interested parties additional time in which to comment. Rebuttal 
comments may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period, until 
November 5, 2009. Submissions (original and one electronic copy) shall 
be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at: Foreign-Trade Zones 
Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 2111, 1401 Constitution Ave. 
NW, Washington, DC 20230.
    For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ca8fa6a3b0aba8afbea2959da2a3beafa7aba48aa3beabe4aea5a9e4ada5bc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="88cde4e1f2e9eaedfce0d7dfe0e1fcede5e9e6c8e1fce9a6ece7eba6efe7fe">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-0473.

    Dated: September 28, 2009.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23941 Filed 10-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>