alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 CAUSE NO. 01- 15 -00152- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

DONALD B. MULLINS and BLUE SKY RIGHT OF WAY, LLC

Appellant

v.

MARTINEZ R.O.W., L.L.C. f/k/a MARTINEZ INVESTMENTS, LLC

Appellee

On Appeal from the 149th Judicial District

of Brazoria County, Texas; Trial Court Cause No. 79750- CV

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TI ME

FOR FILING REPLY BRIEF

COME NOW, DONALD B. MULLINS (“Mullins”) and BLUE SKY

RIGHT OF WAY, LLC (“Blue Sky”), filing their Uno pposed Motion to Exten d

Time for Filing Reply Brief, and state as follows:

I.

The deadline for filing Appellants’ Reply Brief is September 15, 2015

.

Appellants seek a ten day extension of that date. No prior extensions have been

requested for this deadli ne

. ACCEPTED

01-15-00152-cv

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

9/3/2015 2:37:29 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK2 II.

The additional time is requested required to permit the undersigned counsel

to properly re spond to this and other deadlines following recent travel

.

III.

Counsel have conferred and the motion is unopposed

.

Wherefore, premises considered, Appellants pray that th e date for filing their

Reply Brief be extended to September 25, 2015, and for such other and further

relief as the court deems just.

Re spectfully submitted,

P atrick F. Timmons, Jr.

State Bar No. 20049500

8556 Katy F reeway, Suite 120

Houston, Texas 77024

- 1806

(713) 465

- 7638 Office

(713) 465

- 9527 Facsimile

pft@timmonslawfirm.com3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Unopposed Motion to Extend

time for Fi ling Reply Brief of Donald B. Mullins and Blue Sky Right of Way,

LLC, was forwarded to Mr. David P. Boyce, Wright & Greenhill, P.C., 221 West

6th Street, Suite 1800, Austin, Texas 78701, 512

- 476

- 5382, on September 3, 2015,

by telecopy and electronic filing

.

Patrick F. Timmons, Jr.
# EUR-Lex - 31997D0139 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997D0139

**97/139/EC: Commission Decision of 3 February 1997 amending Decision 94/360/EC on the reduced frequency of physical checks of consignments of certain products to be imported from third countries, under Council Directive 90/675/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) **

*
Official Journal L 055 , 25/02/1997 P. 0013 - 0013 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 3 February 1997 amending Decision 94/360/EC on the reduced frequency of physical checks of consignments of certain products to be imported from third countries, under Council Directive 90/675/EEC (Text with EEA relevance) (97/139/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/675/EEC of 10 December 1990 laying down the principles governing the organization of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (1), as last amended by Directive 96/43/EC (2), and in particular Article 8 (3) thereof,

Whereas Annex II to Commission Decision 94/360/EC of 20 May 1994 on the reduced frequency of physical checks of consignments of certain products to be imported from third countries, under Council Directive 90/675/EEC (3), as last amended by Decision 96/104/EC (4), should be updated in the light of negotiations on veterinary agreements with certain third countries and discussions under the EEA Agreement;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The following indents are added to Annex II to Decision 94/360/EC:

'- In the case of New Zealand, the frequencies provided for in Council Decision 97/131/EC of 17 December 1996 on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters concerning the provisional application of the Agreement between the European Community and New Zealand on sanitary measures applicable to trade in live animals and animal products (1).

- In the case of Norway, the Member States are authorized to retain frequencies lower than those provided for in Annex I.

- In the case of Iceland, as regards the products listed in Annex I, category I, 2 and category II, 6, the Member States are authorized to retain frequencies lower than those provided for in Annex I.

(1) OJ No L 57, 26. 2. 1997, p. 1.`

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 3 February 1997.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 373, 31. 12. 1990, p. 1.

(2) OJ No L 162, 1. 7. 1996, p. 1.

(3) OJ No L 158, 25. 6. 1994, p. 41.

(4) OJ No L 24, 31. 1. 1996, p. 31.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00014

- CV
WADI PETROLEUM, INC., DICE EXPLORATION COMPANY, INC., SOUTH BAY

CORPORATION, LAMB OIL & GAS, INC., AND BETACO, LLC v. ETHAN MILLER
On Appeal from the 459th District Court of Travis County , Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. D

- 1

- GN

- 18

- 002826

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case should be remanded to the trial cour t. T he Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART, and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 50% against appellant s and 50% against a ppell ee

. We fur ther order this decision certified below for observance. September 30, 2021
PLEADING — VERDICTS.

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

1900]

Smith, Swing and Giffen, JJ.

#### *Jos. V. L. Irwin v. Peter Christman.

Statute oe Limitations Specially Pleaded — Verdict.

Where the statute of limitations is specially pleaded as a defense, and the jury, being instructed thereon, returns a verdict which includes a finding of that fact in favor of the defendant, such verdict should be treated as a special verdict and judgment rendered thereon.

Heard on Error.

*IV. A. Hicks,*for plaintiff in error.

*H. J.'Harrop,*contra.

*

 For previous decision, see Irwin v. Scheuer, 10 Circ. Dec., 827.

Giffen, J.

Upon a former hearing of this cause we found that the court erred in receiving the McDonald deed in evidence and in leaving its construction to the jury, but that only one issue was affected thereby ; and the jury having found upon both issues in favor of the defendant, the judgment should be affii med.

It now appears that the transcript, which showed that the jury “ upon the issues joined find for the defendant,” was not true and correct, and that the original verdict was upon a single issue only, but one which, of the two issues tendered, can not now be determined. Hence the judgment must be reversed.

It is urged that the defense of the statute of limitations, in an action under the code for the recovery of real property, tenders no issue, but is only another mode of denying plaintiff’s title. Powers v. Armstrong, 36 Ohio St., 357. We are of the opinion that where the statute is specially pleaded as a defense, and the jury, being instructed thereon, afterwards returns a verdict which includes a finding of that fact in favor of the defendant, the same should be treated as a special verdict, and judgment rendered thereon.

There being no plea of estoppel, the court erred in instructing the jury as it did on that question.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
5 May 13, 2010PollutantNAAQSPromulgation DateDesignationsEffective(approximate date)Transport SIPsDue(3 yrs after NAAQSpromulgation)AttainmentDemonstration DueAttainment DatePM2.5(2006)Sept 2006Nov 2009Sept 2009Nov 2012 Nov 2014/2019COMay 2011June 2013 May 2014Dec 2014May 2018PM2.5(2011)Oct 2011Dec 2013Oct 2014Dec 2016 Aug 2018/2023NO2/SO2SecondaryMarch 2012April 2014 March 2015Oct 2015N/ASO2(primary)June 2010July 2012June 2013Jan 2014July 2017OzoneAug 2010Aug 2011(based on 2008-10 data)Aug 2013Dec 2013(to be proposed)Dec 2017(Moderate)PbOct 2008Nov 2010/2011(extra time for new monitors)Oct 2011June2012/2013Nov 2015/2016NO2(primary)Jan 2010Feb 2012Jan 2013Aug 2013Feb 2017Setting the NAAQS Is Just the Beginning...March 2010Response to Johnson MemoFinalMay 2010Tailoring RuleFinalMay 2010CAIR Remand ResponseProposalMarch 2011NSPS for EGUs(anticipated)ProposalMarch 2011Utility Toxic ControlsProposalSpring 2011CAIR Remand ResponseFinalNovember 2011NSPS for EGUS(anticipated)FinalNovember 2011Utility Toxics ControlsFinal20112010EPAAirRegulationsAffectingthePowerSectorCoordinating Reductions: Utility Sector2011 - 2013BART Determinations
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

      ( print page 31614)    
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Design, manufacture, and Industrial Innovation—(1194).                    

*Date and Time:*                         June 5-8, and June 13-14, 2000, 8 am-5:30 pm.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Kamalakar Rajurkar, Program Director, Manufacturing Machines, and Equipment, (703) 306-1330, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate Unsolicited proposals as part of the selection process for awards.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information, financial data such as salaries, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters that are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 522b(c)(4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: May 12, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-12447  Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### James *v.*The State.

Receiving Stolen Goods.

(Decided February 10, 1917.

74 South. 395.)

1. Receiving Stolen Goods; Evidence. — In order to sustain a prosecution for receiving stolen goods, state must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the property in question had been feloniously taken and carried away, and that defendant did buy, receive, conceal or aid in concealing the identical property, knowing that it had been stolen.

2. Same. — The evidence examined and held insufficient to sustain a conviction for receiving stolen goods.

3. Same. — Where there was no evidence of the corpus delicti in a prosecution for receiving stolen goods, defendant should have been given the affirmative charge as requested.

Appeal from Montgomery City Court.

Heard before Hon. GASTON Gunter.

Will James .was convicted of receiving stolen property and he appeals.

Reversed and rendered.

*570Wm. R. Brassell, for appellant.

W. L. Martin, Attorney General, and P. W. Turner, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

BRICKEN, J.

The indictment in this case contained two counts; one for grand larceny, and the other for buying, receiving, concealing, or aiding in the concealing, of stolen property, the property alleged in each count of the indictment being a cow belonging to one Bill McKee. On the trial of the case, the defendant, Will James, was convicted by the verdict of the jury as follows: “We, the jury, find the defendant not guilty on the first count.” “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of receiving stolen property as charged in the second count.”

(1, 2) The propositions of law involved in this case are too well settled to require discussion here. Before the judgment of conviction could be properly had, the evidence must have shown: First, that the cow in question had been feloniously taken and carried away, and the evidence must have shown, this fact beyond a reasonable doubt; second, that the defendant did buy, receive, conceal, or aid in concealing, this identical cow, knowing that it had been stolen, etc. These facts must also have been shown by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. We are constrained to say that after a careful study of the entire record, we are unable to find any evidence to sustain either of the propositions. First, there is no evidence on the part of any witness that the cow of Bill McKee had been stolen; and, second, no evidence of any nature to show that the defendant had received any cow from any one, or that he concealed, or aided in concealing, the cow in question, knowing that it was *stolen.*— Jeffries *v. State,*7 Ala. App. 144, 62 South. 270.

There was no evidence proving or tending to prove the corpus delicti, and the court was in error in refusing the affirmative charge for the defendant as requested in writing. For this error the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.
# EUR-Lex - 31997R1468 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997R1468

**Council Regulation (EC) No 1468/97 of 22 July 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3650/90 on measures to strengthen the application of the common quality standards for fruit and vegetables in Portugal **

*
Official Journal L 200 , 29/07/1997 P. 0001 - 0001 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1468/97 of 22 July 1997 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3650/90 on measures to strengthen the application of the common quality standards for fruit and vegetables in Portugal

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 43 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),

Having regard to the Opinion of the European Parliament (2),

Whereas a programme of measures to improve the application of the common quality standards for fruit and vegetables and to strengthen the arrangements for checking compliance with those standards must be implemented in Portugal over a five-year period in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 3650/90 (3);

Whereas the Portuguese programme was approved by the Commission on 4 April 1992 and whereas Portugal, for reasons connected with restructuring of the administration, has fallen behind in implementing the measures provided for in that programme, which expires on 4 April 1997;

Whereas on 14 October 1996 the Portuguese authorities requested the Commission for an extension of the programme to 31 December 1999;

Whereas, in order to allow Portugal to continue implementing the measures already approved by the Commission, the time limit for implementation of the programme should be extended to 30 September 1999 and all measures, including Community financing, should be fully settled by 15 November 1999,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EEC) No 3650/90 is hereby amended as follows:

1. in the first subparagraph of Article 1 (1), the words 'over a five-year period` shall be replaced by the words 'by 30 September 1999`.

2. Article 3 (1) shall be replaced by the following:

'1. The Community shall contribute 80 % of eligible expenditure as defined pursuant to Article 4 incurred in carrying out the measures referred to in Article 2.

The programme provided for in Article 1 must be fully implemented by 30 September 1999 and settled, including Community financing, by 15 November 1999.`

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 1997.

For the Council

The President

F. BODEN

(1) OJ No C 208, 9. 7. 1997, p. 7.

(2) Opinion delivered on 18 July 1997 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(3) OJ No L 362, 27. 12. 1990, p. 22.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6408** 

COREY WILLIAMS , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. SOUTH CAROLINA; WARDEN PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION , Respondents

– Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States Di strict Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort
. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , District Judge. ( 9:10

- cv - 00829

- JFA )

Submitted : June 16, 2011 Decided: June 21, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY , Circuit Judges , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Ju dge
.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Corey Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Corey Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge iss ues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (A) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies re lief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Williams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with ora l argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit-12





                    LACLEDE GAS COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES

           SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
           -------------------------------------------------------------


                                        Fiscal Year Ended September 30,
                                  ----------------------------------------
                                  2000     1999     1998     1997     1996
                                  ----     ----     ----     ----     ----
                                            (Thousands of Dollars)

Income before interest
 charges and income taxes      $64,077  $61,016  $64,603  $69,908  $69,168

Add: One third of applicable
       rentals charged to
       operating expense
      (which approximates the
       interest factor)            310      301      297      294      291
                               -------------------------------------------
        Total Earnings         $64,387  $61,317  $64,900  $70,202  $69,459
                               ===========================================

Interest on long-term debt     $15,164  $13,966  $14,797  $14,169  $13,939
Other interest                   8,844    6,627    6,473    4,919    4,008

One-third of applicable rentals
  charged to operating expense
  (which approximates the
  interest factor)                 310      301      297      294      291
                               -------------------------------------------
   Total Fixed Charges         $24,318  $20,894  $21,567  $19,382  $18,238
                               ===========================================

Ratio of Earnings to
  Fixed Charges                   2.65     2.93     3.01     3.62     3.81




















                                104
§ 1915.136 Internal combustion engines, other than ship's equipment. The provisions of this section shall apply to ship repairing, shipbuilding and shipbreaking. ( a ) When internal combustion engines furnished by the employer are used in a fixed position below decks, for such purposes as driving pumps, generators, and blowers, the exhaust shall be led to the open air, clear of any ventilation intakes and openings through which it might enter the vessel.
( b ) All exhaust line joints and connections shall be checked for tightness immediately upon starting the engine, and any leaks shall be corrected at once.
( c ) When internal combustion engines on vehicles, such as forklifts and mobile cranes, or on portable equipment such as fans, generators, and pumps exhaust into the atmosphere below decks, the competent person shall make tests of the carbon monoxide content of the atmosphere as frequently as conditions require to ensure that dangerous concentrations do not develop. Employees shall be removed from the compartment involved when the carbon monoxide concentration exceeds 50 parts per million (0.005%). The employer shall use blowers sufficient in size and number and so arranged as to maintain the concentration below this allowable limit before work is resumed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12510]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-003790]


3-I, Incorporated Murrells Inlet, South Carolina; Notice of 
Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act Public Law 103-1 concerning transitional adjustment 
assistance, hereinafter called NAFTA-TAA and in accordance with Section 
250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as 
amended (19 U.S.C. 2331), an investigation was initiated on March 8, 
2000, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at 3-I, 
Inc., Murrells Inlet, South Carolina. Workers produced t-shirts.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn due to 
lack of significant worker separations. Consequently, further 
investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the 
investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 10th day of May, 2000.
Grant D. Beale,
Program Manager, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-12510 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M