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

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Appellate case name: Ronald Dwayne Whitfield v. The State of Texas

Appellate case numbers: 01-92-00617-CR

Trial court case numbers: 617718

Trial court: 174th District Court of Harris County

Appellant was convicted of burglary of a building with intent to commit theft and, 

after being enhanced by two prior felony convictions, was sentenced to 35 years in prison 

on June 5, 1992. On direct appeal, this Court issued an opinion on August 26, 1993, 

affirming appellant’s judgment of conviction. Whitfield v. State, No. 01-92-00617-CR, 

1993 WL 322738, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 26, 1993, pet. ref’d)

(mem. op., not designated for publication). Our mandate issued on March 9, 1994, and 

provided, in relevant part, the following:

The cause came on to be heard on the record of the court 

below, and the same being considered, because it is the

opinion of this Court that there was no error in the judgment, 

it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the Court that the 

judgment be in all things AFFIRMED, and the appellant pay 

all costs in this behalf expended and that this decision be 

certified below for observance.

The Clerk of this Court previously mailed copies of the certified docket sheet, mandate, 

and opinion to appellant on October 20, 2009.

On March 13, 2015, appellant, proceeding pro se and incarcerated, filed an 

amended motion, dated March 10, 2015, to recall our 1994 mandate, as well as the 

mandate in four other causes, as void, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure

18.7, and incorporated his prior letter-motions to recall the mandate. Appellant 

apparently claims that there was no proper rendition of judgment because, among other 

reasons, the criminal complaint was apparently time-stamped when the trial clerk’s office 

was closed, the copy of the opinion he attached to his motions, apparently received from 

the Clerk of this Court, was not physically signed by Justice O’Connor, and because the 
copies of the opinion and mandate, which he apparently received from the trial clerk, did 

not contain the same certified file marks as those from the Clerk of this Court. On June 

24, 2009, we had previously dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction, appellant’s similar pro se

motion to recall our 1994 mandate as void for failure of this Court to render its judgment.

In any event, after our mandate issued on March 9, 1994, our plenary power 

expired, and we lack jurisdiction to vacate or modify our judgment. See TEX. R. APP. P.

19.3. While Rule 19.3(b) allows us to recall our mandate as these rules provide after our 

plenary power has expired, recalling our mandate only occurs if we have first vacated or 

modified our judgment, which has not occurred. See TEX. R. APP. P. 18.7, 19.3(b).

Accordingly, appellant’s amended motion to recall the mandate is dismissed for 

want of jurisdiction. The Court dismisses all pending motions as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: March 24, 2015
#### Petition of SHEFFIELD TANKERS CORPORATION, a corporation, Owner of the Tanker THE TROJAN for Exoneration from, or Limitation of, Liability.

No. 27543.

United States District Court D. California, S. D.

Oct. 28, 1958.

Robert H. Schnacke, U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., Keith R. Ferguson, Special Asst, to the Atty. Gen., Graydon S. Staring, Advocate Atty., Dept, of Justice, San Francisco, Cal., for claimant the United States.

McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, San Francisco, Cal. (Crowell, Rouse & Varían, New York City, of counsel), Russell A. Mackey, San Francisco, Cal., Advocate, for claimant Todd Shipyards Corp.

Lillick, Geary, Wheat, Adams & Charles, San Francisco, Cal. (Nelson, Healy, Baillie & Burke, New York City, of counsel), Mark Scott Hamilton, San Francisco, Cal., Advocate, for petitioner Sheffield Tankers Corp.

WOLLENBERG, District Judge.

Upon due consideration of the briefs and counsels’ arguments, this Court concludes that neither Admiralty Rule 56, 28 U.S.C.A., nor Local Admiralty Rule 10(c), West’s Ann.Cal.Code, is a bar to this petition. Todd Shipyards Corporation in resisting the motion of the United States has made the following two contentions: First, that Rule 56 requires the Government’s cross claim seek relief for claims arising in *this*proceeding. Assuming, without conceding, Todd is correct, the Government’s alleged right to relief *does*arise in this proceeding: See Todd’s pending Motion to Implead the Government filed in Admiralty No. 27506, now consolidated with the present limitations proceeding. Second, the claims of the Government .do not arise out of the same subject matter involved herein. Even though the right to obtain relief against Todd may ultimately depend on the 1955 contract, the Government’s claim does arise out' of the subject matter herein — the accident for which Sheffield seeks limitation.

British Transport Comm. v. United States, 1956, 354 U.S. 129, 77 S.Ct. 1103, 1 L.Ed.2d 1234, is dispositive of the present motion. At page 142 of 354 U.S., at page 1110 of 77 S.Ct., the Court declares “fairness in litigation requires that those who seek affirmative recovery in a court should be subject therein to like exposure for damage resulting from their acts connected with the identical incident.”

Therefore, in accordance with the above opinion, the Court orders, and hereby directs that the United States’ Motion for Leave to File Impleading Petition be, and the same is hereby, Granted.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Arts on radio and television[electronic resource]: guidelines & applications.**
 
SuDoc Number:NF 2.8:AR 7/5/
Item Number:0831-B-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000545958
 
FY: 2001 | 2004
 
February 25, 2020
**P art II, Section A**  **, Item 1/d –**  **Process Description -**  **Manufacturing Raw Material**  **CA S #**  **Kg/batch Total Liquid**  **k gs**  **REA CTOR**  **RECEIVER FILTER**  **FILLING 1** 

**3 2**
§ 910.10 General. To facilitate review of each *development* proposal in light of the identified urban planning and design goals of *the Plan,* the following urban planning and design concerns will be the basis upon which the evaluation of such proposals will be made. These concerns are also more specifically reflected in subpart C of this Rule, and in the requirements and recommendations in *Square Guidelines.* ( a ) Comprehensive planning and design;
( b ) Development density;
( c ) Urban design of Washington, DC;
( d ) Historic preservation;
( e ) New development design;
( f ) Land use;
( g ) Pedestrian circulation sytems; and
( h ) Vehicular circulation and storage systems.
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED SECOND CONGRESS 

Convened January 3, 1991 FIRST SESSION { 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Tuesday, July 30, 1991 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF WALTER J. STEWART, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Gerald A. Hackett, Executive Clerk 
1 

TREATIES 

-

Calendar Treaty Subject Reported 

No. Doc. No. Bv 

1 EX. B., Two Related Protocols to the Convention for Feb 5 91 Reported favorably 95-1 the Unification of Certain Rules Relating by Mr. Pell, Committee on 

to International Carriage by Air, as Foreign Relations, with a 

Amended (Montreal Aviation Protocols No. 3 resolution of advice and 

and 4). consent to ratification 

with provisos. (Printed 

report--Ex. Rept. 102-1 

together with minority 

views). 

NOMINATIONS 

Calendar Message Nominee, Office, And Predecessor Reported 

No. No. By 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

* 261 361 William Happer, of New Jersey, to be Jul 24, 91 Mr. Johnston, 

Director of the Off ice of Energy Research, Committee on Energy and 

vice Robert 0. Hunter, Jr., resigned. Natural Resources, without 

printed reoort. 

*Stgntfies nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly 

constituted committee of the Senate.
#### § 291.37 Scientific or paleontological value.

The scientific value of any paleontological resource involved in a violation of the prohibitions contained in this part or conditions of a permit issued pursuant to this Part shall be the value of the information associated with the paleontological resource. The term “scientific value” can be used interchangeably with the term “paleontological value.” This value shall be determined in terms of the costs of the retrieval of the scientific and educational information which would have been obtainable prior to the violation. These costs may include, but need not be limited to, the cost of preparing a research design, conducting field work, carrying out laboratory analysis, and preparing reports or educational materials or displays as would be necessary to realize the information potential.
§ 65.7 Monitoring National Historic Landmarks. ( a ) NPS maintains a continuing relationship with the owners of National Historic Landmarks. Periodic visits, contacts with State Historic Preservation Officers, and other appropriate means will be used to determine whether landmarks retain their integrity, to advise owners concerning accepted preservation standards and techniques and to update administrative records on the properties.
( b ) Reports of monitoring activities form the basis for the annual report submitted to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior, as mandated by section 8, National Park System General Authorities Act of 1970, as amended (90 Stat. 1940, 16 U.S.C. 1a-5). The Secretary's annual report will identify those National Historic Landmarks which exhibit known or anticipated damage or threats to their integrity. In evaluating National Historic Landmarks for listing in the report, the seriousness and imminence of the damage or threat are considered, as well as the integrity of the landmark at the time of designation taking into account the criteria in § 65.4.
( c ) As mandated in section 9, Mining in the National Parks Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 1342, 16 U.S.C. 1980), whenever the Secretary of the Interior finds that a National Historic Landmark may be irreparably lost or destroyed in whole or in part by any surface mining activity, including exploration for, removal or production of minerals or materials, the Secretary shall ( 1 ) notify the person conducting such activity of that finding;
( 2 ) Submit a report thereon, including the basis for his finding that such activity may cause irreparable loss or destruction of a National Historic Landmark, to the Advisory Council; and
( 3 ) Request from the Council advice as to alternative measures that may be taken by the United States to mitigate or abate such activity.
( d ) Monitoring activities described in this section, including the preparation of the mandated reports to Congress and the Advisory Council are carried out by NPS regional offices under the direction of the Preservation Assistance Division, NPS [Address: Chief, Resource Assistance Division, National Park Service, 440 G Street NW, Washington, DC 20243] in consultation with the History Division, NPS.
#### § 71.1 Application.

This part is promulgated pursuant to section 4, Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 16 U.S.C.A. 4601-6a (Supp., 1974), and section 3, Act of July 11, 1972, 86 Stat. 461. Any Federal recreation fee charged by any bureau of the Department of the Interior shall be charged according to criteria set forth in this part.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JUNE 22, 2022

NO. 03-20-00122-CV

Travis Central Appraisal District, By and Through Marya Crigler, Acting In Her Official 

Capacity as Chief Appraiser of Travis Central Appraisal District, Appellant

v.

Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc., Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, TRIANA, AND SMITH

REVERSED AND REMANDED ON MOTION FOR REHEARING –

OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on February 11, 2020. The Court’s 

opinion and judgment dated February 18, 2022, are withdrawn. Having reviewed the record 

and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the trial court’s

judgment. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and remands the case to the 

trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion. Appellee shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
§ 101.30 Delegations of authority. ( a ) The priorities and allocations authorities of the President under section 101 of the DPA with respect to health resources have been delegated to the Secretary under E.O. 13603. The Secretary may re-delegate the Secretary's priorities authorities under the DPA to authorize a Delegate Agency to assign priority ratings to orders for health resources needed for use in approved programs.
( b ) Pursuant to 87 FR 58363 published in the Federal Register on September 26, 2022, the Secretary delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (the ASPR) within the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), the authority under section 201 of E.O. 13603 to exercise priorities authority under section 101 of the DPA. This delegation authorized the ASPR, on behalf of the Secretary, to approve DO—[-[M1-M9] priority rating requests for health resources that promote the national defense, though this delegation excludes the authority to approve all priorities provisions for health resources that require DX—[-[M1-M9] priority ratings.
From: Angus Crane [acrane@naima.org]

Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2011 9:15 AM

To: Hancy, Cindy Wang

Cc: Fairchild.Susan@epamail.epa.gov; Reeves, David

Subject: Johnss Manville's Submission

Johns Manville will have their updated spreadsheets and aerial plant maps to EPA sometime today or,

at the latest, on Friday, June 10th. The delay was due to the travel schedules of key people that are

involved in reviewing and verifying information.

A ngus E. Crane

Executive Vice President, General Counsel

North American Insulation Manufacturers Association

Ph: (703) 684

- 0084 ext. 123

Fax: (703) 684

- 0427

Visit NAIMA online at:

www.NAIMA.org

www.PipeInsulation.org
§ 1151.3 Membership. ( a ) *Public Members.* ( 1 ) The Board shall have thirteen members appointed by the President from among members of the general public, at least a majority of whom shall have disabilities.
( 2 ) Members shall be appointed for a term of four years, may be reappointed to one successive term, and thereafter may not be reappointed unless they have not served on the Access board for at least two years prior to their reappointment. Each year, the terms of at least three members of the Board shall expire. A public member may continue to serve following expiration of the member's term if a successor has not been appointed.
( b ) *Federal Members.* The remaining members of the Board shall be the heads of the following agencies or their designees whose positions are Executive Level IV or higher: ( 1 ) The Department of health and Human Services;
( 2 ) The Department of Transportation;
( 3 ) The Department of Housing and Urban Development;
( 4 ) The Department of Labor;
( 5 ) The Department of the Interior;
( 6 ) The Department of Defense;
( 7 ) The Department of Justice;
( 8 ) The General Services Administration;
( 9 ) The Department of Veterans Affairs;
( 10 ) The United States Postal Service;
( 11 ) The Department of Education; and
( 12 ) The Department of Commerce.
( c ) *Designation of Federal Board Members and Liaisons.* ( 1 ) Designation of a Federal Board member other than an agency head shall be made in writing by the agency head or by anyone authorized to provide such designation on behalf of the agency head. The designation may either be of a particular position, an individual, or both. If only a specific person is designated and not the position, a new designation will be required where appointment of another person to fill the position is subsequently made. The designation shall remain in effect for as long as provided for under applicable agency rules, regulations, or policies.
( 2 ) An individual serving in an acting capacity, or who is otherwise temporarily serving, in a position at Executive Level IV or higher may be designated to serve on the Board, subject to any time limitations under applicable law, or under agency rules, regulations, or policies.
( 3 ) Any newly-appointed Federal Board member shall designate in writing a liaison to the Board. A newly appointed Federal Board member may allow an individual previously serving as a liaison to the Board to continue to do so, but must provide a new designation in writing.
( 4 ) Written designation of a Federal Board member or liaison may be in any form (including from a verifiable email address) indicating the identity of the person making the designation and that the person is authorized to do so.
[87 FR 69169, Nov. 18, 2022]
# PAC Table 5c

&"Arial,Bold"&10&KFF0000This table was generated on 8/25/20.
Date of 

report 

1988 

May 27 

NINETIETH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION {Convened January ro, 1967 

'\.djourned December 15, 1967 

S S {Convened Januuy 15, 1968 ECOND ESSION 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Pre pared under the dn ectton of FRANCIS R V ALEO, Secretary of the Senate 

By GERALD A HACKETT, Executive Clerk 

Tuesday, May 28, 1968 

NOMINATION 

Calendar Message Name ofnommee Office Predecessor No No 

MISSISSIPPI RIVER 

COMMISSION 

318 132 Roy T Sessums, of Member of the MisSISSippi DeWitt L Pyburn 

Lomsiana RIVer Commission for a 

t erm of 9 years I 

85- 022--68--No 159 

U S GOVERNMENT PRI NTING OFFICE 1968
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

      ( print page 62416)    
The Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee will meet on November 8, 2006, 9 a.m., Room 3884, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on implementation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and provides for continuing review to update the EAR as needed.

## Agenda

1. Welcome and Introductions.

2. Remarks and Update from BIS.

3. Graphics Processors Technology.

4. Frequency Standards.

5. Telephony Signaling.

6. Phase Noise.

7. Frequency Synthesizer Assemblies.

8. Practitioner's Guide to APP.

                    The meeting will be open to the public and a limited number of seats will be available. 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 Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials to Yvette Springer at                     *Yspringer@bis.doc.gov.*

For more information contact Ms. Springer on (202) 482-2813.

Dated: October 19, 2006.

Yvette Springer,

Committee Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 06-8887 Filed 10-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M
*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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 23, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-30006

Summary Calendar

 

FREDDIE C. GADDIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO.,

Defendant-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:04-CV-1222

 

Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Freddie C. Gaddis, proceeding pro se here and below, has

appealed the district court’s order denying his motion for relief,

under FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b), from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his complaint seeking relief under the Federal Employers

Liability Act. 
2

Gaddis, proceeding pro se, filed his suit in May 1996 in

respect to injuries he allegedly received in July 1977. Union

Pacific Railroad Co., successor by merger to the named defendant

Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., moved for summary judgment on the

basis that Gaddis’s claim was barred by limitations. The district

court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed

Gaddis’s suit with prejudice. Gaddis timely appealed to this

court, but thereafter, in April 1998, this court dismissed his

appeal for want of prosecution. 

Gaddis’s instant Rule 60(b) motion was filed in June 2004. In

that motion Gaddis claims that the defendant fraudulently “duped”

him into not responding to its limitations-based motion for summary

judgment by telling him that the court “was not going to grant” the

motion. 

Gaddis does not argue on appeal that the district court erred

in treating his pleading as a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b), rather

than as an independent action asserting fraud on the court pursuant

to the savings clause of Rule 60(b). See FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b);

Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 873 F.2d 869, 872 (5th Cir.

1989).

To the extent that Gaddis sought relief based on fraud, under

FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3), the motion was untimely. To the extent

that he sought relief based on a void judgment, under FED. R. CIV.

P. 60(b)(4), Gaddis has not shown that the district court acted
3

“outside its legal powers.” Carter v. Fenner, 136 F.3d 1000, 1005

(5th Cir. 1998).

Because the appeal is without arguable merit, it is DISMISSED

AS FRIVOLOUS. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.

1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.