alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-20214

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ALBERTO MUNOZ VILLALON, also known as Jose A. Munoz, also

known as Jose Alberto Munoz, also known as Jose Alberton Munoz-Villalon, also

known as Jose Munoz, also known as Jose Abberto Munoz Villalon,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CR-719-1

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Jose Alberto Munoz Villalon (Munoz)

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Munoz has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and

the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Munoz’s response. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

November 29, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-20214 Document: 00511678270 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2011
No. 11-20214

We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 11-20214 Document: 00511678270 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2011
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Dean L. Julia, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Ace Marketing &
Promotions, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer (if any) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

         a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

         b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

         a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

         b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting.

DATE: August 21, 2006                    /S/ DEAN L. JULIA
                                         -----------------
                                         DEAN L. JULIA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

Post Office Box 12248 

Austin, Texas 78711

(512) 463-1312 

June 21, 2007 

Mr. Charles F. Fulbruge, III, Clerk 

U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit 

300 John Minor Wisdom Building 

600 Camp Street 

New Orleans, LA 70130 

RE: Case No. 04-051215; in the U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 

Case Number: 05-0476; in the Supreme Court of Texas 

Style: THOMAS EUGENE NORRIS, SR. AND KAREN LYNN NORRIS 

 v. 

 JOHNNY W. THOMAS, TRUSTEE 

Dear Mr. Fulbruge: 

The referenced cause in the Supreme Court of Texas is now final. Costs are to be 

determined by Rule 58.5, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, unless otherwise ordered by the 

certifying court. 

Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 58.10, copies of this Court’s opinions are enclosed. The 

record which was forwarded for use by our Court is also enclosed. Please acknowledge receipt 

with the form attached to the record. 

Sincerely, 

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk 

by Gena Pelham, Deputy Clerk 

Enclosures 
RECORD RECEIPT

Supreme Court of Texas Docket No. 05-0476 

 Received this date, the following record items from the Supreme Court of Texas: 

1. 2 Volumes of the Record on Appeal 

2. Appellants’ Brief 

3. Appellee’s Brief 

______________________________ 

(signature and date received) 

______________________________ 

(printed name) 

______________________________ 

(title) 

 Please return this form in the enclosed envelope, to the Clerk, Supreme Court of Texas, 

Post Office Box 12248, Austin, Texas 78711-2248. 

Case No. 05-0476 Page 2
# EUR-Lex - 12005SA034 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12005SA034

**Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded - PART FOUR:TEMPORARY PROVISIONS - TITLE III:FINANCIAL PROVISIONS - Article 34 **

*
Official Journal L 157 , 21/06/2005 P. 0215 - 0215 *

Article 34

1. In addition to the regulations concerning rural development in force on the date of accession, the provisions laid down in Sections I to III of Annex VIII shall apply to Bulgaria and Romania for the period 2007-2009 and the specific financial provisions laid down in Section IV of Annex VIII shall apply to Bulgaria and Romania throughout the programming period 2007-2013.

2. Without prejudice to future policy decisions, commitment appropriations from the EAGGF Guarantee Section for rural development for Bulgaria and Romania over the three-year period 2007-2009 shall amount to EUR 3041 million (2004 prices).

3. Implementing rules, where necessary, for the application of the provisions of Annex VIII shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 50(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999.

4. The Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, and after consulting the European Parliament, shall make any adaptations to the provisions of Annex VIII where necessary to ensure coherence with the regulations concerning rural development.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 12008E264 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E264

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART SIX: INSTITUTIONAL AND FINANCIAL PROVISIONS - TITLE I: INSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS - Chapter 1: The institutions - Section 5: The Court of Justice of the European Union - Article 264 (ex Article 231 TEC) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0163 - 0163 *

Article 264

(ex Article 231 TEC)

If the action is well founded, the Court of Justice of the European Union shall declare the act concerned to be void.

However, the Court shall, if it considers this necessary, state which of the effects of the act which it has declared void shall be considered as definitive.

--------------------------------------------------
#### Marcus D. Gage, Respondent, *v.*Otto L. Bloomquist et al., Appellants.

*Gage*v. *Bloomquist,*113 App. Div. 890, affirmed.

(Argued December 2, 1907;

decided December 17, 1907.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered May 19, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee in an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendants’ negligence.

*Arthur G.. Wade, James L. Weeks*and *Arthur W. Kettle*for appellants.

*Thomas H. Dovjd*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., O’Brien, Edward T, Bartlett, Haight, Yann, Hisoook and Chase, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7795
TERENCE KENNETH O'NEAL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus T. E. MERKEL; NURSE CASHWELL; NURSE ALLEN; NURSE DAVIS; MR. CONN, Defendants - Appellees, and
FRAN KLIN E. FREEMAN, JR.; GARY DIXON; DOCTOR LOWY; DOCTOR SHAW; DOCTOR CASTALLOE; HARRY ALLSBROOK; MR. CHERRY, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-94-476-5-CT-H) Submitted: October 31, 1996 Decided: November 18, 1996 Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Terence Kenneth O'Neal, Appellant Pro Se. Mark John Pletzke, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. O'Neal v. Merkel , No. CA-94-476-5-CT-H (E.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 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
# EUR-Lex - 12004V/PRO/28 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V/PRO/28

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - Protocols and Annexes - 28.Protocol concerning Article III-214 of the Constitution **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0373 - 0373 *

28. PROTOCOL CONCERNING ARTICLE III-214 OF THE CONSTITUTION

THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES,

HAVE AGREED upon the following provision, which shall be annexed to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe:

Sole article

For the purposes of Article III-214 of the Constitution, benefits under occupational social security schemes shall not be considered as remuneration if and insofar as they are attributable to periods of employment prior to 17 May 1990, except in the case of workers or those claiming under them who have before that date initiated legal proceedings or introduced an equivalent claim under the applicable national law.

--------------------------------------------------
Editorial Note on Part 660
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 660 appear at 67 FR 65906, Oct. 29, 2002, 88 FR 81358, Nov. 22, 2023.

§ 660.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) The regulations in this part govern fishing activity by vessels of the United States that fish or support fishing inside the outer boundary of the EEZ off the states of Washington, Oregon, and California.
( b ) General regulations governing fishing by all vessels of the United States and by fishing vessels other than vessels of the United States are contained in part 600 of this chapter.
( c ) Regulations governing the harvest, possession, landing, purchase, and sale of shark fins are found at part 600, subpart N, of this chapter.
[61 FR 34572, July 2, 1996, as amended at 67 FR 6201, Feb. 11, 2002; 69 FR 53362, Sept. 1, 2004; 71 FR 17989, Apr. 10, 2006; 81 FR 19057, Apr. 4, 2016]
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on 
Form S-8 pertaining to the Credit Depot Corporation 1993 Stock Option Plan, in 
the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-310125) and related Prospectus of 
Credit Depot Corporation, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 
333-52113) and related Prospectus of Credit Depot Corporation of our report 
dated September 30, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements 
of Credit Depot Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for 
the year ended June 30, 1998.

/s/  Ernst & Young, LLP
---------------------------------------

Atlanta, Georgia
October 13, 1998
#### §§ 90.805-90.806 [Reserved]
# EUR-Lex - 12007P035 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12007P035

**Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - TITLE IV - SOLIDARITY - Article 35 - Health care **

*
Official Journal 303 , 14/12/2007 P. 0009 - 0009 *

Article 35

Health care

Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all the Union's policies and activities.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 12008E074 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12008E074

**Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART THREE: UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS - TITLE V: AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND JUSTICE - Chapter 1: General provisions - Article 74 (ex Article 66 TEC) **

*
Official Journal 115 , 09/05/2008 P. 0075 - 0075 *

Article 74

(ex Article 66 TEC)

The Council shall adopt measures to ensure administrative cooperation between the relevant departments of the Member States in the areas covered by this Title, as well as between those departments and the Commission. It shall act on a Commission proposal, subject to Article 76, and after consulting the European Parliament.

--------------------------------------------------
§ 18.125 Prohibited take under a Letter of Authorization (LOA). Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, prohibited taking is described in § 18.11 as well as: ( a ) Intentional take, Level A harassment, as defined in section 3 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1362), and lethal incidental take of polar bears or Pacific walruses; and
( b ) Any take that fails to comply with this subpart or with the terms and conditions of an LOA.
# EUR-Lex - 12006E230 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12006E230

**Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated version) - Part Five - Institutions of the Community - TITLE I - Provisions governing the institutions - Chapter 1 - The institutions - Section 4 - The Court of Justice - Article 230 **

*
Official Journal C 321 E , 29/12/2006 P. 0146 - 0146 Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0126 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0272 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0062 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Article 230

The Court of Justice shall review the legality of acts adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council, of acts of the Council, of the Commission and of the ECB, other than recommendations and opinions, and of acts of the European Parliament intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties.

It shall for this purpose have jurisdiction in actions brought by a Member State, the European Parliament, the Council or the Commission on grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of this Treaty or of any rule of law relating to its application, or misuse of powers.

The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction under the same conditions in actions brought by the Court of Auditors and by the ECB for the purpose of protecting their prerogatives.

Any natural or legal person may, under the same conditions, institute proceedings against a decision addressed to that person or against a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to the former.

The proceedings provided for in this Article shall be instituted within two months of the publication of the measure, or of its notification to the plaintiff, or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the latter, as the case may be.

--------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0750 Directorate Identifier: 2013-NE- 25 -AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

RB211-535 HP n 

IP disk removal 

10% life reduction 

0.0 $ 0.00 $4,000 $4,000.00 20 $80,000.00

$ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $80,000

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): ASE Estimate
based on our database and estimated loss of disk life. the number of engines is in relation to the 

number of Serial numbers affected. Estimated disk cost $20,000 with 10% life reduction 

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
#### Sarah A. Bly, Respondent, *v.*The Edison Electric Illuminating Company of New York, Appellant.

(Submitted March 13, 1907;

decided April 16, 1907.)

*Bly*v. *Edison Electric Ill. Co.,*111 App. Div. 170, affirmed.

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 15, 1906, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial in an action to restrain the continuance of an alleged nuisance and to recover past damages therefor.

*Henry J. Heminens*and *J. Haviland Tomphins*for appellant.

*Franh M. Hardenbrooh*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion. . '

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Chase, JJ. Dissenting : Gray, J,
### Is Glacier Peak a dangerous volcano?

By: L.G. MastinR. B. Waitt

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr95413

#### Links

- More information:  **Publisher Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available 

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-16-00683-CR

Daniel GUTIERREZ-LOPEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR7741

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 23, 2016

DISMISSED

On October 31, 2016, this court issued an order stating this appeal would be dismissed 

pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) unless appellant filed in the appellate record 

within twenty days an amended trial court certification that shows appellant has the right of appeal. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; see also Daniels v. State, 110 S.W.3d 174, 175-76 (Tex. App.—

San Antonio 2003, order). Appellant did not file an amended certification, and the clerk’s record 

does not contain a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal. To the contrary, 
04-16-00683-CR

- 2 -

the trial court certification in the record states “this criminal case is a plea-bargain case, and the 

defendant has NO right of appeal.” 

The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not 

exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by appellant. Therefore, the 

clerk’s record supports the trial court’s certification that appellant has no right of appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

 PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH