alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 29, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-11-00809-CR

NO. 14-11-00810-CR

____________

ERIC A. PEREZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 182nd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1300489 & 1300490

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant entered guilty pleas to theft and possession of prohibited weapons. In

accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court 

sentenced appellant on the theft charge to confinement for six months in the State Jail

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Consistent with the terms of a 

plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant on the possession 
2

charge to confinement for two years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department 

of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed pro se notices of appeal. We dismiss the appeals. 

The trial court entered certifications of the defendant’s right to appeal in which the 

court certified that these are plea bargain cases, and the defendant has no right of appeal. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certification is included in the record in 

each appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The records support the trial court’s 

certifications. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Seymore, and Jamison.

Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

WILLIAM F. KAETZ, 

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2022-1812

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:22-cv-00201-MMS, Senior Judge Margaret M. 

Sweeney. 

______________________

O R D E R

The appellant having failed to file the brief required by 

Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the 

rules, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The notice of appeal be, and the same hereby is, 

DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance 

with the rules. 

Case: 22-1812 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 07/22/2022
2 KAETZ V. US

(2) All pending motions are denied as moot.

FOR THE COURT

July 22, 2022

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: July 22, 2022

Case: 22-1812 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 07/22/2022
§ 0.601 Definitions. For purposes of this section: ( a ) The term *agency* means: ( 1 ) The Commission,
( 2 ) A board of Commissioners (see § 0.212),
( 3 ) The Telecommunications Committee (see § 0.215), and
( 4 ) Any other group of Commissioners hereafter established by the Commission on a continuing or *ad hoc* basis and authorized to act on behalf of the Commission.
( b ) The term *meeting* means the deliberations among a quorum of the Commission, a Board of Commissioners, or a quorum of a committee of Commissioners, where such deliberations determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official agency business, except that the term does not include deliberations to decide whether to announce a meeting with less than seven days notice, or whether a meeting should be open or closed. (The term includes conference telephone calls, but does not include the separate consideration of Commission business by Commissioners.) For purposes of this subpart each item on the agenda of a meeting is considered a meeting or a portion of a meeting.
[42 FR 12867, Mar. 7, 1977, as amended at 48 FR 56391, Dec. 21, 1983; 64 FR 2149, Jan. 13, 1999]
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 125 (Wednesday, June 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39888]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16302]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Notice of Wetland Involvement for Installation of a Soils Staging 
Area (Cell 2) at the Miamisburg Environmental Management Project

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE), Miamisburg Environmental Management 
Project.

ACTION: Notice of wetland involvement

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

SUMMARY: This is to give notice of DOE's proposal to construct a soil 
staging area at the Miamisburg Environmental Management Project (MEMP), 
located approximately ten (10) miles southwest of Dayton, Ohio. The 
proposed activity would involve a small isolated wetland in Montgomery 
County, Ohio. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 1022, Compliance with 
Floodplains/Wetlands Environmental Review Requirements, DOE will 
prepare a Wetlands Assessment and conduct the proposed action in such a 
manner as to avoid or minimize potential harm to or within the 
surrounding environment.

DATES: Written comments must be received by the DOE at the following 
address on or before July 13, 2000.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this proposed action, including a 
site map and/or a copy of the Wetlands Assessment, contact: Mr. Art 
Kleinrath, U. S. Department of Energy, Miamisburg Environmental 
Management Project, P. O. Box 66, Miamisburg, OH 45343-0066.
    Phone: (937) 865-3597; Facsimile: (937) 865-4489.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For further information on general 
DOE wetland and floodplain environmental review requirements, contact: 
Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance, 
EH-42, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, 
Washington, D.C. 20585.
    Phone: (202) 586-4600 or 1-800-472-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed activity would directly support 
the ongoing environmental remediation program at the Mound Plant. 
Construction of the new soil staging area would impact approximately a 
0.03 acre isolated wetland. The wetland is one of several identified in 
the Delineation of Federal Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S., 
Miamisburg Environmental Management Project, August 1999. The proposed 
action will result in negative, long-term, and direct impacts from the 
excavation and filling of an isolated wetland of 0.03 acres. The 
affected wetland would be excavated and filled with soil during the 
construction of a drainage channel supporting a new soil staging area. 
Best management practices will be utilized to avoid or minimize 
potential harm to or within the surrounding environment (e.g., 
including, but not limited to, minimum grading requirements, runoff 
controls, and design and construction constraints).

    Issued in Miamisburg, Ohio on June 16, 2000.
Susan L. Smiley,
NEPA Compliance Officer, Ohio Field Office.
[FR Doc. 00-16302 Filed 6-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
#### § 302-6.18 How is my TQSE allowance affected if my temporary quarters become my permanent residence quarters?

If your temporary quarters become your permanent residence quarters, you may receive a TQSE allowance only if you show in a manner satisfactory to your agency that you initially intended to occupy the quarters temporarily. You will not be entitled to TQSE once your agency determines that your temporary quarters are your permanent residence. (See § 302-6.207 for details.)
#### Todd GREEN, Defendant-Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff-Below, Appellee.

No. 540, 2015

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: August 24, 2016

Decided: September 7, 2016

Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware, Cr. ID No. 1406002733

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 122 (Friday, June 23, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 39175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15894]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[CA-330-1820-DH-014B]


Headwaters Forest Reserve, California

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management in Partnership With California 
Department of Fish and Game.

ACTION: Extension of scoping comment period.

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

SUMMARY: A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the adoption of a 
Management Plan for the Headwaters Forest Reserve in the northcoast 
area of California, and to announce three public scoping meetings, was 
published in the Federal Register June 2, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 107). 
A scoping comment deadline of July 3, 2000 was also cited and is hereby 
extended to Friday, August 4, 2000 by this notice. This extension is 
intended to provide the public with additional time to prepare and 
submit comments.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: An internet web page describes in detail the 
scope of the proposed plan and provides background information on the 
Headwaters Forest Reserve. The web page contains instructions for 
submitting scoping comments, and coding of comments by subject is 
requested. The internet address of the web site of www.ca.blm.gov/arcata/headwaters.html. The deadline for submitting comments is amended 
to Friday, August 4, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynda J. Roush, Arcata Field Manager, 
at 707-825-2300 or Headwaters Forest Reserve Management Plan 
Information Line, 916-737-3010, extension 4326. Email comments should 
be sent to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b9d1dcd8ddced8cddccbcac9d5d8d7f9d8cdcd97d7dccd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d35383c392a3c29382f2e2d313c331d3c292973333829">[email protected]</span></a>, or comment letters should be mailed 
to P.O. Box 189445, Sacramento, California 95818-9445.

Lynda J. Roush,
Arcata Field Manager.
[FR Doc. 00-15894 Filed 6-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Anaren, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph E. Porcello,
Vice President, Finance and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

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

(2)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.

/s/ Joseph E. Porcello
----------------------
Joseph E. Porcello
Vice President, Finance and Treasurer

January 28, 2003
#### § 105-50.202-1 Copies of statistical or other studies.

This material includes a copy of any existing statistical or other studies and compilations, results of technical tests and evaluations, technical information, surveys, reports, and documents, and any such materials which may be developed or prepared in the future to meet the needs of the Federal Government or to carry out normal program responsibilities of GSA.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            31,067
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    445,121
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                      202,913
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 199,427
<PP&E>                                           556,533
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,435,061
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,491,909
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            117,541
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                           5,720
<OTHER-SE>                                    (2,180,109)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,435,061
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               3,807,370
<CGS>                                          2,277,119
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,651,202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               145,332
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (4,266,283)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       3,266
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (4,269,549)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (4,269,549)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.86)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0
        


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4205 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4205

  To amend title 11, D.C. Code, to clarify that blind individuals are 
 eligible to serve as jurors in the Superior Court of the District of 
                               Columbia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 13, 1994

   Ms. Norton (for herself, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Lewis of 
   Georgia, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Saxton, and Mr. Stark) introduced the 
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the District of 
                                Columbia

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 11, D.C. Code, to clarify that blind individuals are 
 eligible to serve as jurors in the Superior Court of the District of 
                               Columbia.

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

SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY OF BLIND INDIVIDUALS TO SERVE 
              AS JURORS IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

    Section 11-1906(b), D.C. Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
following new paragraph:
    ``(4) An individual who is blind may not be disqualified from 
serving as a juror solely on the basis of blindness, but may be 
disqualified from serving as a juror in a particular case if the 
individual's blindness makes the individual incapable of rendering 
satisfactory jury service in that case.''.

                                 <all>
```
#### § 109-45.309 Special classes of property.
#### § 102-38.185 May we sell Federal personal property to State or local governments?

Yes, you may sell Federal personal property to State or local governments. Additional guidelines on sales to State or local governments are contained in subpart G of this part.
#### DUANE D. FOOTE, Appellant, *v.*HAMILTON BEECHER, Respondent.

*Illegal*evidence— *effect of its admission where it does not change the decision of the*case— *distinction between its effect in actions at law and in equity.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the report of a referee.

The court at General Term, after holding that the referee erred in admitting certain evidence, said:

“ The question, then, is whether there is sufficient evidence, irrespective of that which should have been excluded, satisfactory and conclusive in character, to sustain the finding of the referee, that the mortgage debt was not paid. The rules of evidence have been rigorously adhered to hitherto in actions at law. So it has been repeatedly decided that where illegal evidence has been admitted, bearing at all on the result, the error is fatal. *(Worrall*v. *Par-melee,*1 N. Y., 519; *Bawd*v. *Qillett,*47 id., 186; *Siarbwd*v. *Barrons,*43 id., 200; *Handley*v. *Hatter,*16 N. Y. S. 0. Rep. [9 Hun], 134; *Bragner*v. *Lord,*4 Weekly Dig., 77; *Williams*v. *Fitch,*18 N. Y., 546.) In the last case cited, Judge Comstock said, that although there was evidence, after rejecting that which was objectionable; sufficient to sustain the conclusion of the referee, this would not cure the error of its admission, that the party was entitled to the referee’s judgment upon testimony which was competent. But a more lenient rule has been adopted in equity actions. In this class of actions it is uniformly held that if evidence be *375improperly admitted, bearing on a fact abundantly made out by other and competent proof, a new trial will not be granted for such error. *(Bennett v. Austin,*12 N.-Y. S. C. [5 Hun], 538; *Platt*v. *Platt,*2 N. Y. S. C. Rep. [T. & C.], 25,26 ; *Church*v. *Kidd,*10 N. Y. S. C. [3 Hun], 251-267; *Forrest*v. *Forrest,*25 N. Y., 501-510; *Clapp*v. *Fullerton,*31 id., 190; *Patterson*v. *Copelamd,*52 How., 160.) After carefully examining all the evidence in this case, I confess myself entirely satisfied with the conclusion of the referee that the mortgage debt was not paid, and I reach this conclusion without considering the evidence above declared to be inadmissible.”

*Johnson <& Prescott,*for the appellant.

*M. J. Shoecrqft,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Bocees, J.;

Learned, P. J., and Boardman, J., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
# Comments on: 18-2118: INSPIRED DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. INSPIRED PRODUCTS GROUP, LLC [OPINION], Nonprecedential
# Comments on: 22-1391: FRESHUB, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. [OPINION], Precedential
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7686
ROBERT LEE BROCK, a/k/a Two Souls Walker, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RAYMOND ROBERTSON, District Attorney, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge. (CA-95-891-2) Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Lee Brock, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Brock v. Robertson , No. CA-95-891-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29, 1995). 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
§ 101-25.106 Servicing of office machines. ( a ) The determination as to whether office machines are to be serviced by use of annual maintenance contracts or per-call arrangements shall be made in each case after comparison of the relative cost affecting specific types of equipment in a particular location and consideration of the factors set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) Prior to making the determination required by paragraph (a) of this section, consideration shall be given to: ( 1 ) Standard of performance required;
( 2 ) Degree of reliability needed;
( 3 ) Environmental factors; i.e., dusty surroundings or other unfavorable conditions;
( 4 ) Proximity to available repair facilities;
( 5 ) Past experience with service facility; i.e., reputation, performance record, quality of work, etc.;
( 6 ) Daily use (heavy or light) and operator's care of machine;
( 7 ) Age and performance record of machine;
( 8 ) Machine inventory in relation to operating needs; i.e., availability of reserve machine in case of breakdown;
( 9 ) Number of machines; including overall frequency of repairs required;
( 10 ) Security restrictions, if any; and
( 11 ) Other pertinent factors.
[31 FR 14260, Nov. 4, 1966]
420P15

#### State v. Marlon E. Mendoza-Mejia

1. State’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA14-1261)

1. Allowed 12/21/2015

Dissolved 03/17/2016

2. State’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

2. Denied

3. State’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3. Denied
#### § 50-203.5 Intervention.

Any employer, employee, labor or trade organization or other interested person or organization desiring to intervene in any pending proceeding prior to, or at the time it is called for hearing, but not after a hearing, except for good cause shown, shall file a petition in writing for leave to intervene, which shall be served on all parties to the proceeding, with the Chief administrative law judge, Department of Labor, or with the administrative law judge designated to conduct the hearing, setting forth the position and interest of the petitioner and the grounds of the proposed intervention. The Chief administrative law judge, or the administrative law judge, as the case may be, may grant leave to intervene to such extent and upon such terms as he shall deem just.

[11 FR 14493, Dec. 18, 1946. Redesignated at 24 FR 10952, Dec. 30, 1959, as amended at 61 FR 19987, May 3, 1996]
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11-2717

___________ Jessie Hill * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Chris E. Williams, Circuit Judge, * Malvern, AR; Phillip H. Shirron, Circuit* [UNPUBLISHED] Judge, Grant County; John W. Cole, * Judge; Dan Harmon, Former Prosecutor,* Grant County; Harold King, Former * Deputy Prosecutor, Grant County; * Richard A. Garrett, Deputy Prosecuting * Attorney, Grant County; Eddy R. * Easley, Prosecuting Attorney, Grant * County; Norman B. Frisby, Deputy * Prosecuting Attorney, Grant County; * Estate of Sherman Bell, Detective, * Ouachita County; Bob Adams, Grant * County; Norman Mark Klappenbach, * Attorney, Fordyce, AR; Estate of Joe * Kelly Hardin, Assistant Counsel; Does, * Jurors/Alternate Jurors, Grant County * Trial September 1995; Bob Frazier, * Attorney, Malvern, AR; Crain, Attorney,* Malvern, AR; Arkansas Attorney * General, Office and Staff; City of * Sheridan Arkansas, * * Appellees. *-2- ___________ Submitted: October 6, 2011 Filed: October 12, 2011

___________ Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jessie Hill appeals following the district court’s pre-service dismissal of his civil complaint and moves for permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. We grant IFP status. Further, afte r careful review of the record, we conclude that remand is required, because it appears th e district court failed to rule on a motion to amend that Hill filed on February 17, 2011. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s order dismissing Hill’s complaint, and we remand for consideration of the motion to amend. See Pure Country, Inc. v. Sigma Chi Fraternity , 312 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2002). We also deny as moot Hill’s pending motion for injunctive relief.

______________________________