alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please

2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 

3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated

4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does

5 not include the filing date.

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

8 Plaintiff-Appellee,

9 v. NO. 30,582

10 DONNA HARTE, a/k/a

11 DONNA LOPEZ-HOLLINGSHEAD,

12 Defendant-Appellant.

13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY

14 Stephen Bridgforth, District Judge

15 Gary K. King, Attorney General

16 Santa Fe, NM

17 for Appellee

18 The Law Offices of Nancy L. Simmons, P.C.

19 Nancy L. Simmons

20 Albuquerque, NM

21 for Appellant

22 MEMORANDUM OPINION
2

1 CASTILLO, Chief Judge.

2 Defendant Donna Harte appeals the district court’s orders revoking her

3 probation and imposing judgment and sentence. 

4 On June 14, 2011, this Court filed a second notice of proposed summary

5 disposition, again proposing to affirm. On July, 21, 2011, Defendant filed a second

6 memorandum in opposition, re-asserting the arguments set forth in her first

7 memorandum and suggesting in the alternative that the appeal be reassigned to the

8 general calendar. Having duly considered Defendant’s memoranda in opposition, we

9 affirm the district court for the reasons stated in our first and second notices of

10 proposed summary disposition.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 __________________________________

13 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge

14 WE CONCUR:

15 __________________________________

16 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge

17 __________________________________

18 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge
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.                  

###### Department of Commerce

###### Bureau of Industry and Security

The Materials Technical Advisory Committee will meet on September 7, 2006, 10:30 a.m., Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution & Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., Washington, DC . The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to materials and related technology.

## Agenda

### Public Session

1. Opening remarks and introductions.

2. Report from the composites working group.

3. Report on latest activities from Chemical Weapons Convention.

4. New Business

### Closed Session

5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sections 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).

                    A limited number of seats will be available during the public session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the  extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the materials should be forwarded prior to the meeting to Ms. Yvette Springer at                     *Yspringer@bis.doc.gov*

The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on August 4, 2006, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, that the portion of the meeting dealing with matters the premature disclosure of which would likely frustrate the implementation of a proposed agency action as described in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 sections  10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.

For more information, call Yvette Springer at (202) 482-4814.

Dated: August 10, 2006.

Yvette Springer,

Committee Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 06-6967 Filed 8-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M
No. 11-5413.

#### Bowman *v.*New York.

App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 166 (Wednesday, August 27, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: C1-2014-19157]

[[Page 51117]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0529; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-260-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

Correction

    In proposed rule document 2014-19157 beginning on page 47395 in the 
issue of Wednesday, August 13, 2014, make the following correction:

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

    On page 47399, in the table titled ``Figure 1 to Paragraph (i) of 
This AD--AFM Revision'', in the fourth line, ``AGN-32'' should read 
``ABN-32''.

[FR Doc. C1-2014-19157 Filed 8-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
[Civ. No. 1307.

First Appellate District.

January 28, 1914.]

#### FREDERICK J. RUSSELL, Appellant, v. ISABELLA J. CHISHOLM et al., Respondents.

Appeal—Authentication op Transcript—Absence op Judge’s Certificate.—A transcript on appeal from an order granting a motion for a new trial which contains no certificate of the judge that the papers and records included in .the transcript are any or all of those used upon the hearing of the motion, is insufficient under either the old or new method of perfecting and presenting the record on appeal, although the transcript has attached to it .the certificate of the clerk that the papers and orders therein contained are true copies of fhe originals on file in his office.

*728APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Alameda County granting a new trial William S. Wells, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Z. N. Goldsby, for Appellant.

Reed, Black, Reed & Bingaman, for Respondents.

RICHARDS, J.

This is an appeal from an order granting the motions for a new trial of defendants Chisholm and Gray. The respondents stand at the threshold,of this appeal objecting to its consideration upon the merits on the ground that no properly authenticated transcript on appeal has been perfected or filed. The transcript oh appeal herein has attached to it the certificate of the clerk of the superior court from which the appeal is taken, “that the papers and orders therein contained are tine, full and correct copies of the originals on file and of record in this office, and of the whole thereof, together with the proof of service and filing thereof, and the indorsements thereon”; but there is no certificate of the judge of the court that the papers and records which the transcript contains were any or all of the papers or records which were used, upon the hearing of the motion for a new trial. That a transcript lacking such certificate is insufficient under either the old or new method of perfecting and presenting the record on appeal, is settled under the authority of *Thompson*v. *American Fruit Co., 21*Cal. App. 338, [131 Pac. 878], and cases therein cited.

It follows that the respondent’s objection to the further consideration of this appeal must be held to be well taken.

The order is affirmed.

Lennon, P. J., and Kerrigan, J.„ concurred.
#### § 80.1021 Nameplate.

A durable nameplate must be mounted on the required radiotelephone or be an integral part of it. When the transmitter and receiver comprise a single unit, one nameplate is sufficient. The nameplate must show at least the name of the manufacturer and the type or model number.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4967 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4967

   To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse in 
Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Theodore Levin Federal Building and United 
                          States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 16, 1994

   Miss Collins of Michigan introduced the following bill; which was 
      referred to the Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse in 
Detroit, Michigan, as the ``Theodore Levin Federal Building and United 
                          States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 231 W. 
Lafayette in Detroit, Michigan, shall be known and designated as the 
``Theodore Levin Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``Theodore Levin Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.
                                 <all>
```
#### GOO v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12620.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 9, 1951.

Writ of Certiorari Denied April 23, 1951.

See 71 S.Ct. 735.

J. Garner Anthony, Robert E. Brown, Honolulu, T. H. (Robertson, Castle & Anthony, Peter A. Lee, all of Honolulu, T. H., of counsel), for appellant.

Ray J. O’Brien, U. S. Atty., Howard K. Hoddick, Asst. U. S. Atty., Honolulu, T. H., Frank J. Hennessy, U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before ORR and POPE, Circuit Judges, and GOODMAN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, on his plea of guilty to an information charging criminal violations of the Internal Revenue Code. Upon this appeal from the judgment of conviction, he claims the District Court erred in denying his motion, made pursuant to 32(d) Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 18 U.S.C.A., to withdraw his plea of guilty.

He contends that Section 32(d) of F.R. C.P. confers upon him the absolute right to withdraw his guilty plea at any time prior to imposition of sentence.

We find no merit in this contention. There is complete uniformity in the authorities to the effect that no such right exists and that motions to withdraw guilty pleas are addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. This is true as to 32(d) of F.R.C.P. and also as to motions under former Rule 11(4) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to the Act of March 8, 1934. We deem it unnecessary to cite the numerous decisions to that effect.

The record does not support appellant’s contention that the trial court abused *63its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The main reason urged in support of the motion was that appellant wished to investigate income tax deductions of which he might avail himself for the years 1946 and 1947. Such matters would not have been admissible by way of defense and would have no bearing on the defendant’s guilt or innocence of the charges set forth in the information, which involved prior years. Hence the District Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 160 (Friday, August 18, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47812-47813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7023]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics: Meeting

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS) announces the following advisory 
committee meeting.

    Name: National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS), 
Ad Hoc Workgroup on the Nationwide Health Information Network 
(NHIN).
    Time and Date: August 31, 2006--11 a.m.-3 p.m. Eastern Daylight 
Time.
    Place: Conference Call; Toll Free--1-888-425-9978; Leader's Name 
and Pass code--Dr. Simon Cohn, NCVHS; USA Toll Number 1-210-234-
8000.
    Status: Open.
    Purpose: The Workgroup will discuss its draft findings related 
to a ``minimum but essential'' list of functional requirements for a 
nationwide health information network.
    Contact Person for More Information: Substantive program 
information as well as summaries of meetings and a roster of 
committee members may be obtained from Mary Jo Deering PhD., Lead 
Staff Person for the NCVHS Workgroup on the National Health 
Information Infrastructure, NCI Center for Strategic Dissemination 
and NCI Center for Bioinformatics, National Cancer Institute, 
National Institutes of Health, 6116 Executive Boulevard--Room 4087, 
Rockville, MD 20852, telephone (301) 594-8193, or Marjorie S. 
Greenberg, Executive Secretary, NCVHS, National Center for Health 
Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 3311 Toledo 
Road, Room 2402, Hyattsville,

[[Page 47813]]

Maryland 20782, telephone (301) 458-4245. Information also is 
available on the NCVHS home page of the HHS Web site: http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/, where an agenda for the meeting will be posted 
when available.
    Should you require reasonable accommodation, please contact the 
CDC Office of Equal Employment Opportunity on (301) 458-4EEO (4336) 
as soon as possible.

    Dated: August 10, 2006.
James Scanlon,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science and Data Policy, Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
[FR Doc. 06-7023 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4151-04-M
##### 



Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CEO 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 Zap.Com Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending
 September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
 hereof (the Report), Avram A. Glazer, as Chief Executive Officer of
 the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
 to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to the best of my knowledge, that:



|(1) |  | The Report fully complies
 with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 result of operations of the Company.



|/s/ Avram A. Glazer                    | 
|-------------------------------------- | 
|                                       | 
|Avram A. Glazer                        | 
|President
 and Chief Executive Officer
|November 13,
 2002                     | 

This Certification accompanies this Report
 pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed
 filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
 1934, as amended.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4764

To provide for the payment of aid to families with dependent children through

the use of debit cards.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 14, 1994

Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide for the payment of aid to families with dependent

children through the use of debit cards.

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF AFDC BENEFITS THROUGH THE

4 USE OF DEBIT CARDS.

5 Section 402(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

6 602(a)) is amended—

7 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

8 (44);

9 (2) by striking the period at the end of para10 graph (45) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and
2

•HR 4764 IH

1 (3) by inserting after paragraph (45) the fol2 lowing:

3 ‘‘(46) provide that—

4 ‘‘(A) the State shall—

5 ‘‘(i) for each recipient of aid under

6 the State plan, establish an account into

7 which the State will deposit the amounts of

8 aid payable to the recipient under the

9 State plan, and the amounts in which are

10 accessible to the recipient only through the

11 use of a debit card issued pursuant to

12 clause (ii); and

13 ‘‘(ii) issue to each recipient of aid

14 under the State plan a debit card that—

15 ‘‘(I) contains a unique identifica16 tion number, a photograph of the re17 cipient, and the signature of the recip18 ient;

19 ‘‘(II) is indistinguishable from

20 other kinds of debit cards; and

21 ‘‘(III) may be used by the recipi22 ent only to obligate amounts in the

23 account for the purchase of goods and

24 services, for not more than the price

25 thereof, through an electronic funds
3

•HR 4764 IH

1 transfer network and point-of-sale

2 technology; and

3 ‘‘(B) the State shall comply with subpara4 graph (A)—

5 ‘‘(i) not later than January 1, 1996,

6 with respect to each recipient of such aid

7 whose application for such aid is approved

8 on or after such date; and

9 ‘‘(ii) not later than January 1, 1998,

10 with respect to each recipient of such

11 aid.’’.

Æ
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-18-00453-CR

NO. 09-18-00454-CR

NO. 09-18-00455-CR

____________________

RONALD EDWIN DUNCAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_______________________________________________________ ______________

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 18-330373, 18-330374, and 18-330375

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

The trial court sentenced Ronald Edwin Duncan on October 15, 2018. The 

notices of appeal were due to be filed on November 14, 2018. See Tex. R. App. P.

26.2(a)(1). A notice of appeal was not filed until November 21, 2018, and Duncan 

did not timely file a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 26.3.
2

On December 10, 2018, we notified the parties that the appeals had not been 

timely perfected and that the appeals would be dismissed unless a written response 

is filed in this Court showing cause why these appeals should not be dismissed for 

lack of jurisdiction. Duncan filed a response but failed to demonstrate that our 

appellate jurisdiction was invoked within the time permitted for perfecting the 

appeals.

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke appellate jurisdiction. See 

Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 918 

S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). “When a notice of appeal, but no motion 

for extension of time, is filed within the 15-day period, the court of appeals can take 

no action other than to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” Aleman v. State, 

554 S.W.3d 794, 795 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.). We dismiss 

the appeals for lack of jurisdiction. 

APPEALS DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

 LEANNE JOHNSON

 Justice

 

Submitted on January 29, 2019

Opinion Delivered January 30, 2019

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 11, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-60211 Summary Calendar

IVAN CALIXTO-GONZALEZ, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A78 961 801

-------------------- Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ivan Calixto-Gonzalez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision to deny his application for asylum. Calixto-Gonzalez has waived the denial of his application for withholding of removal by failing to assert that denial as a basis for reversal. See Rodriguez v. INS , 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir. 1993). This court will uphold the BIA’s factual finding that an alien is not eligible for asylum if the determination is supported byNo. 04-60211 -2- substantial evidence. Efe v. Ashcroft , 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). “The substantial evidence standard requires only that the Board’s conclusion be based upon the evidence presented and be substantially reasonable.” Ontunez-Tursios v. Ashcroft , 303 F.3d 341, 350 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Because the BIA summarily affirmed without opinion the IJ’s decision, the IJ’s decision is the final agency determination for judicial review. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7)(iii); Soadjede v. Ashcroft , 324 F.3d 830, 832 (5th Cir. 2003). Calixto-Gonzalez has failed to make the requisite showing that he was unable to return to El Salvador “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion . . . .” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); see also Jukic v. INS , 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED.