alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## NO. 12

- 18

- 00237

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

EX PARTE:

M.L.L. §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 2ND

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

CHEROKEE COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant , the Texas Department of Public Safety, filed a motion to dismiss this

appeal. Appellant states that information not previously known was discovered, which indicates

Appellee’s eligibility for expunction. Thus, in the interest of judicial economy, Appellant states

that it no longer desires to pursue the appeal. No decision has been delivered in this

appeal. Accordingly, Appellant’s motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal is dismissed

. See

T EX

. R. A P P

. P. 42.1 (a) (1)

.
Opinion delivered December 4 , 2018.

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

( PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

DECEMBER 4 , 2018

NO. 12

- 18

- 00237

- CV

EX PARTE: M.L.L.

Appeal from the 2nd District Court

of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. A2017

- 00022)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
§ 268.201 Age Discrimination in Employment Act. ( a ) As an alternative to filing a complaint under this part, an aggrieved individual may file a civil action in a United States district court under the ADEA against the agency after giving the Commission not less than 30 days' notice of the intent to file such an action. Such notice must be filed in writing with EEOC, at P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by personal delivery or facsimile within 180 days of the occurrence of the alleged unlawful practice.
( b ) The Commission may exempt a position from the provisions of the ADEA if the Commission establishes a maximum age requirement for the position on the basis of a determination that age is a bona fide occupational qualification necessary to the performance of the duties of the position.
( c ) When an individual has filed an administrative complaint alleging age discrimination, administrative remedies will be considered to be exhausted for purposes of filing a civil action: ( 1 ) 180 days after the filing of an individual complaint if the Board has not taken final action and the individual has not filed an appeal or 180 days after the filing of a class complaint if the Board has not issued a final decision;
( 2 ) After final action on an individual or class complaint if the individual has not filed an appeal; or
( 3 ) After the issuance of a final decision by the Commission on an appeal or 180 days after the filing of an appeal, if the Commission has not issued a final decision.
[68 FR 18085, Apr. 15, 2003, as amended at 84 FR 27030, June 11, 2019]
# C_2023244EN.01000501.xml

| 11.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

10 July 2023

(2023/C 244/03)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0956 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 155,73 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4512 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85733 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,8745 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9753 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 147,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,5635 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 23,843 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 382,65 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4508 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9490 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 28,5900 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6488 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4552 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5783 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7707 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4773 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 429,51 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 20,6523 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9291 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 655,60 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,1165 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,996 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,477 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,3246 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,7544 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 90,4985 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0956

JPY

Japanese yen

155,73

DKK

Danish krone

7,4512

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85733

SEK

Swedish krona

11,8745

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9753

ISK

Iceland króna

147,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,5635

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

23,843

HUF

Hungarian forint

382,65

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4508

RON

Romanian leu

4,9490

TRY

Turkish lira

28,5900

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6488

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4552

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5783

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7707

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4773

KRW

South Korean won

1 429,51

ZAR

South African rand

20,6523

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9291

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 655,60

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,1165

PHP

Philippine peso

60,996

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

38,477

BRL

Brazilian real

5,3246

MXN

Mexican peso

18,7544

INR

Indian rupee

90,4985

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00273-CV

John M. DONOHUE,

Appellant

v.

BANDERA COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL: Daniel R. Butts, J.J. 

Martinez, Gerald Johnson, Rod Chalmers, D.J. Nowlin, Ernest Ferniz, Luis Moreno, Kim 

Manglberger, Chris Ahumada, Shane Merritt, Jose Hernandez, Matt Hernandez, Birdie Tyler; 

Boerne Police Department Personnel: Pablo Morales; San Antonio Police Department Personnel: 

Perla Dominguez and Kevin Nakata; Denice Martinez and Martha L. Donohue,

Appellees

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV-15-0000271

Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the order of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal 

because he qualifies as indigent under TEX. R. APP. P. 20.

SIGNED January 8, 2020.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
```

[110th Congress Public Law 44]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ044.110]

[[Page 121 STAT. 238]]

Public Law 110-44
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
  To temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 
   1965, and for other purposes. <<NOTE: July 3, 2007 -  [S. 1704]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, <<NOTE: First 
Higher Education Extension Act of 2007. 20 USC 1001 note.>> 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``First Higher Education Extension Act 
of 2007''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS.

    Section 2(a) of the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 (Public 
Law 109-81; 20 U.S.C. 1001 note) is amended by striking ``June 30, 
2007'' and inserting ``July 31, 2007''.
SEC. 3. <<NOTE: 20 USC 1001 note.>>  RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    Nothing in this Act, or in the Higher Education Extension Act of 
2005 as amended by this Act, shall be construed to limit or otherwise 
alter the authorizations of appropriations for, or the durations of, 
programs contained in the amendments made by the Higher Education 
Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171) to the provisions of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act of 
2004.

    Approved July 3, 2007.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 1704:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 153 (2007):
            June 27, considered and passed Senate.
            June 28, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
# C_2021075EN.01000301.xml

| 4.3.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/3

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2021/C 75/03)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 24 November 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 85848 |
| Decision No | 136/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | COVID-19 3rd amendment and prolongation of the guarantee scheme for airlines |
| Legal basis | The national legal basis for the amendment and prolongation will be the Parliamentary Decision authorising the extension of the guarantee period under the scheme and a prolongation of the aid measure. |
| Type of measure | Scheme |
| Objective | The purpose of the guarantee scheme is to alleviate the liquidity shortage faced by the airline industry and ensure that disruptions caused by the COVID-19 outbreak do not undermine the airlines’ viability. |
| Form of aid | Public guarantees |
| Budget | Estimated NOK 6 billion |
| Duration | 30 June 2021 |
| Economic sectors | Airline industry |
| Name and address of the granting authority | GIEK, the Norwegian Export Credit Guarantee Agency |
| Pb 1763 Vika |
| N-0122 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

24 November 2020

Case No

85848

Decision No

136/20/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

COVID-19 3rd amendment and prolongation of the guarantee scheme for airlines

Legal basis

The national legal basis for the amendment and prolongation will be the Parliamentary Decision authorising the extension of the guarantee period under the scheme and a prolongation of the aid measure.

Type of measure

Scheme

Objective

The purpose of the guarantee scheme is to alleviate the liquidity shortage faced by the airline industry and ensure that disruptions caused by the COVID-19 outbreak do not undermine the airlines’ viability.

Form of aid

Public guarantees

Budget

Estimated NOK 6 billion

Duration

30 June 2021

Economic sectors

Airline industry

Name and address of the granting authority

GIEK, the Norwegian Export Credit Guarantee Agency

Pb 1763 Vika

N-0122 Oslo

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---
# C_2017198EN.01000401.xml

| 22.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/4

---

State aid — Decision to raise no objections

(2017/C 198/04)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 16 March 2017 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case No | : | 80135 |
| Decision No | : | 045/17/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Region | : | Norway |
| Title (and/or name of the potential beneficiaries) | : | Yara AS, Norcem AS, Klemetsrudanlegget AS and Statoil ASA |
| Legal basis | : | Norwegian State budget |
| Type of measure | : | Individual aid measures |
| Objective | : | Enviromental |
| Form of aid | : | Grant |
| Budget | : | 360 000 000 NOK |
| Intensity | : | Up to 100 % |
| Duration | : | 2017 |
| Economic sectors | : | Various |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | Gassnova SF |
| Dokkvegen 10, Porsgrunn Næringspark |
| NO-3920 Porsgrunn |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

16 March 2017

Case No

Case No

:

80135

Decision No

Decision No

:

045/17/COL

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Norway

Region

Region

:

Norway

Title (and/or name of the potential beneficiaries)

Title (and/or name of the potential beneficiaries)

:

Yara AS, Norcem AS, Klemetsrudanlegget AS and Statoil ASA

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

Norwegian State budget

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

Individual aid measures

Objective

Objective

:

Enviromental

Form of aid

Form of aid

:

Grant

Budget

Budget

:

360 000 000 NOK

Intensity

Intensity

:

Up to 100 %

Duration

Duration

:

2017

Economic sectors

Economic sectors

:

Various

Name and address of the granting authority

Name and address of the granting authority

:

Gassnova SF

Dokkvegen 10, Porsgrunn Næringspark

NO-3920 Porsgrunn

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
# C_2016413EN.01000601.xml

| 10.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/6

---

No state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement

(2016/C 413/06)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority considers that the following measure does not constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 61(1) of the EEA Agreement:

| Date of adoption of the decision | : | 15 June 2016 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Case No | : | 79001 |
| Decision No | : | 127/16/COL |
| EFTA State | : | Norway |
| Region | : | Oslo |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | : | Urbanium AS |
| Legal basis | : |
| Type of measure | : | Sale of property |
| Objective | : |
| Form of aid | : | No aid |
| Budget | : |
| Intensity | : |
| Duration | : |
| Economic sectors | : |
| Name and address of the granting authority | : | City of Oslo, Agency for Real Estate and Urban Renewal |
| Christian Krohgs gate 16 |
| N-0105 Oslo |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

Date of adoption of the decision

:

15 June 2016

Case No

Case No

:

79001

Decision No

Decision No

:

127/16/COL

EFTA State

EFTA State

:

Norway

Region

Region

:

Oslo

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

:

Urbanium AS

Legal basis

Legal basis

:

Type of measure

Type of measure

:

Sale of property

Objective

Objective

:

Form of aid

Form of aid

:

No aid

Budget

Budget

:

Intensity

Intensity

:

Duration

Duration

:

Economic sectors

Economic sectors

:

Name and address of the granting authority

Name and address of the granting authority

:

City of Oslo, Agency for Real Estate and Urban Renewal

Christian Krohgs gate 16

N-0105 Oslo

NORWAY

Other information

Other information

:

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website:

http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/

---
```

[House Report 106-571]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-571

======================================================================

 
 PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2328, THE CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM

                                _______
                                

   April 11, 2000.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

   Mr. Reynolds, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 468]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 468, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                summary of provisions of the resolution

    The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 2328, 
the Clean Lakes Program, under an open rule. The rule provides 
one hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure.
    The rule makes in order the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure amendment in the nature of a substitute, now 
printed in the bill, as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment. The rule also waives clause 7 of rule XVI 
(prohibiting nongermane amendments) against the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The rule further 
provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
be open for amendment by section. Members who have preprinted 
their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their 
consideration will be given priority in recognition to offer 
their amendments if otherwise consistent with House rules. The 
rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce 
voting time to five minutes on a postponed question if the vote 
follows a fifteen minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for 
one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
    The waiver of clause 7 of rule XVI (prohibiting nongermane 
amendments) against the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure amendment in the nature of substitute is 
necessary because the substitute adds Otsego Lake in New York, 
Oneida Lake in New York, Raystown Lake in Pennsylvania, and 
Swan Lake in Itasca County, Minnesota to the Clean Lakes 
Program and these lakes were not included in the original bill.

                                  

```
1

Th e c lie nt a

nd a c o- de fe nd ant w e re arr e ste d w itha bo ut 4 2 po un ds of c oc a ine in t he ir po sse ssi on . T he c o- de fe nd ant w a s c ha rg e d w ith po sse ssi on and a lso wi th po sse ssi on wi th i nte nt t o deliver a Penalty Group 1 c ontrolled substance . The total amount of the co -d ef endant’ s bond on the se c ha rg e s w a s $ 10 0, 00 0 ( havin g be e n re du c e d fr om $1, 00 0, 00 0)
. Th e c o- de fe nd ant m a de thi s bo nd thr ou g h a

ba il- bo nd

c omp any . T he c lie nt a

nd the c o- de fe nd ant f

a ile d to a pp e ar f or the ir tr ia ls. 

## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS

OF TE XAS
NO. P D-513-09
ROSS A. RODRIGUEZ , ATTORNEY AT LAW, S URETY, Appellan t
v . THE S TATE O F TEXAS ON AP P ELLA NT ’S P ETIT ION F OR DI SCRETIO NA RYRE VI EW F RO M THE F OU RT H CO UR T OF AP P EA LS

BEX AR CO UN TY H ERV EY , J., delivered the opinion for a un animous Court.
O P I N I O N Appellant executed a

$100,000 bail bond (having been reduc ed fr om $1,000,000) for a client who had be en cha

rg ed with possession of more tha n 400 g rams of a

Penalt y Gr o u p 1 controlled
su bs tanc e (c oc a ine ). Th e punis hme nt r ang e fo r t his po sse ssi on of

fe ns e is 10 to 99 y e ars , or

lif e , in 1Rodrigue z--2

prison and a f

ine not to exceed $100,000. See Section 481.115(f) , T EX . H E AL TH & S AF E TY C ODE . Th e c lie nt w a s late r i nd ic te d in a tw o- c ount i nd ic tme nt fo r po sse ssi on and a lso fo r p os se ssi on

wi th intent to deliver more tha n 400 g rams of the same Pena lty Group 1 c ontrolled substance . The punishment r ang e for the possession-with-intent-to deliver offe nse is 15 to 99 y ear s, or life, in prison
an d a fi n e n ot to ex cee d $250,000. See Section 481.115(f) , T EX . H E AL TH & S AF E TY C ODE . The
c l i e n tf a i l e d t o a p p e ar f o r t r i a l o nt h i s i n d i c t m e n tan d a p p e l l an tan d

t h e c l i e n t , j o i n t l y an d

s e v e r a l l y,
wer e orde red to pa

y the full amount of the $100,000 bond. The court of a ppeals re jected a ppellant’s claim that he wa s not liable on the bond beca use “the State, by incre asing the cha rg es [to include a po s s e s s io n - w it

h-intent-to-de liver count], unilaterally and without his consent incre ased his risk” that the client would not appea r for trial. Se e Ro dr igu e

z v . S tat e , 283 S.W .3d 465, 470-71 (Te x .App.–San An ton io 2 00 9) . T he g ro un d u po n w hic h w e g ra

nte d d isc re tio na

ry re vie w s ta te s: Whether a b ai l b o n d surety is liable after

executing a

bail bond when the State of Texas subsequently

chang es and adds more serious char g es to the char g e for which the surety executed the ba il bond. Havingexamined t h e re cord a nd briefs a

nd considere d the ar g uments in this case, we conclude that our decision to g rant revie w was improvident. We there fore dismiss the appe llant’s petition for discre tionary

revie w as improvidently

g rante d.

H e r

v e y , J.
Deliver ed: Novembe r 4, 2009 Pub lis h
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2635 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2635

To make permanent the reduction in capital gains rates for individuals 
   made by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2003

 Mr. English introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To make permanent the reduction in capital gains rates for individuals 
   made by the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.

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

SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN CAPITAL GAINS RATES FOR INDIVIDUALS MADE 
              PERMANENT.

    Section 303 of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 
2003 is amended--
            (1) by striking ``this title'' and inserting ``section 
        302'', and
            (2) in the heading, by striking ``TITLE'' and inserting 
        ``SECTION 302''.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 225
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 225 appear at 69 FR 77618, Dec. 28, 2004.

§ 225.121 Acquisition of Edge corporation affiliate by State member banks of registered bank holding company. ( a ) The Board has been asked whether it is permissible for the commercial banking affiliates of a bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, to acquire and hold the shares of the holding company's Edge corporation subsidiary organized under section 25(a) of the Federal Reserve Act.
( b ) Section 9 of the Bank Holding Company Act amendments of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-485, approved July 1, 1966) repealed section 6 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. That rendered obsolete the Board's interpretation of section 6 that was published in the March 1966 Federal Reserve Bulletin, page 339 (§ 225.120). Thus, so far as Federal Banking law applicable to State member banks is concerned, the answer to the foregoing question depends on the provisions of section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act, as amended by the 1966 amendments to the Bank Holding Company Act. By its specific terms, the provisions of section 23A do not apply to an affiliate organized under section 25(a) of the Federal Reserve Act.
( c ) Accordingly, the Board concludes that, except for such restrictions as may exist under applicable State law, it would be legally permissible by virtue of paragraph 20 of section 9 of the Federal Reserve Act for any or all of the State member banks that are affiliates of a registered bank holding company to acquire and hold shares of the Edge corporation subsidiary of the bank holding company within the amount limitation in the last sentence of paragraph 12 of section 25(a) of the Federal Reserve Act.
(12 U.S.C. 24, 248, 335, 371c, 611, 618)
[31 FR 10263, July 29, 1966. Redesignated at 36 FR 21666, Nov. 12, 1971]