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

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-79,617-02

EX PARTE CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 1171238-B IN THE 184th DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of capital murder

and sentenced to life imprisonment. The First Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Johnson

v. State, No. 01-11-00192-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [1 Dist.], delivered October 4, 2012, no pet.). st

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to timely notify him that his conviction had been affirmed and failed to advise him of his right

to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. 

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit, the trial court
2

has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed to timely notify

Applicant that his conviction had been affirmed and failed to advise him of his right to file a pro se

petition for discretionary review. The trial court recommends that relief be granted. Ex parte Riley,

193 S.W.3d 900 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).

We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition

for discretionaryreview of the judgment of the First Court of Appeals in Cause No. 01-11-00192-CR

that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 01-11-00192-CR from the 184th District Court of Harris

County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with this Court within 30 days of

the date on which this Court’s mandate issues.

Delivered: June 12, 2013

Do not publish
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7216
LARRY LEE THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusBARBARA K. HOWE, individually and in her official capacity as Circuit Court Administrative Judge; EDWARD DEWATERS, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Circuit Court Judge; SUZANNE MENSH, individually and in herofficial capacity as Chief Clerk; ALAN M. WILNER, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Judge, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. M. J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-96-1821- MJG) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 6, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry Lee Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, a Maryland state inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (1994), amended by Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Thompson v. Howe , No. CA-96-1821-MJG (D. Md. July 9, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
#### § 83.20 Interim procedures.

For the purposes of implementing this part during the period between its effective date and the final issuance by the Department of a consolidated procedural regulation applicable to sections 704 and 845 of the Act and other civil rights authorities administered by the Department, the procedural provisions applicable to title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference. These procedures may be found at 45 CFR 80.6 through 80.11 and 45 CFR part 81.
#### Perkins *v.*The State.

Lumpkin, J.

1. This case is controlled by the previous rulings of this court in which it is held that there is no law authorizing the making of a motion for a hew trial in vacation; that an extraordinary motion so filed is a mere nullity; that it is erroneous for a judge of the superior court to take jurisdiction of such a motion; and that when he does so and undertakes to decide it upon its merits, the judgment will be reversed. *Collier*v. *State,*115 *Ga.*17; *Jinks*v. *State,*Id. 243; *Johnson*v. *State,*116 *Ga.*535; *Brinkley*v. *Buchanan,*55 *Ga.*342; *East Tenn. R. Co.*v. *Whitlock,*75 *Ga.*77; *Ferrill*v. *Marks,*76 *Ga.*21.

2. The motion for new trial in this case purporting to be based on extraordinary grounds appears to have been made and decided in vacation, *579and. nothing was done in respect to it either at the term when the trial was had or at any subsequent term, so as to give it vitality, under the ruling in *Blalock*v. *Waggoner,*82 *Ga.*122.

"Argued October 17,

Decided November 8, 1906.

Motion for new trial. Before Judge Seabrook. Effingham superior court. July 10, 1906.

*Twiggs &*Oliver, *Edgar J. Oliver,*and *O. T. Guyton,*for plaintiff in error. *John O. Hart, attorney-general,*and *Livingston Kenan, solicitor-general,*contra.

3. The judgment is accordingly reversed, and direction is given that the motion itself and the action of the judge thereon be hereafter, in the superior court of Effingham county, ignored and treated as a mere nullity.

*Judgment reversed, with direction.*

*All the Justices concur.*
§ 800.306 Nonrenewal. ( a ) *Nonrenewal.* Nonrenewal may pertain to the MSP issuer or the State-level issuer. The circumstances under which nonrenewal may occur are: ( 1 ) *Nonrenewal of contract.* As used in this subpart and subpart E of this part, “nonrenewal of contract” means a decision by either OPM or an MSP issuer not to renew an MSP Program contract.
( 2 ) *Nonrenewal of participation.* As used in this subpart and subpart E of this part, “nonrenewal of participation” means a decision by OPM, an MSP issuer, or a State-level issuer not to renew a State-level issuer's participation in a MSP Program contract.
( b ) *Notice required.* Either OPM or an MSP issuer may decline to renew an MSP Program contract by providing a written notice of nonrenewal to the other party.
( c ) *MSP issuer responsibilities.* The MSP issuer's written notice of nonrenewal must be made in accordance with its MSP Program contract with OPM. The MSP issuer also must comply with any requirements regarding the termination of a plan that are applicable to a QHP offered on an Exchange on which the MSP option was offered, including a requirement to provide advance written notice of termination to enrollees. MSP issuers shall provide written notice to enrollees in accordance with § 800.404(d).
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 13119)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel, ZEB1 OSR-D (M2) S Conference Grants.                    

*Date:*                         April 12, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         12 p.m. to 4 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Room 242 Small Conference Room, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         John K. Hayes, Scientific Review Administrator, 6707 Democracy Blvd, Suite 959, Democracy Two, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-3398,                         *hayesj@mail.nih.gov*.                    

Dated: March 13, 2007.

Anna Snouffer,

Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-1350 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### § 63.8 Supplemental regulations and grant conditions.

(a) *Grants under section 232 of the Community Services Act.*

(1) Any grants awarded with funds appropriated under section 232 of the Community Services Act shall be subject to the following regulations issued by the Director of the Community Services Administration (formerly the Office of Economic Opportunity):

| 45 CFR 1060.2 | (Income Poverty Guidelines.) |
| --- | --- |
| 45 CFR 1060.3 | (Limitation on Benefits to Those Voluntarily Poor.) |
| 45 CFR 1067.1 | (Suspension and Termination of Assistance.) |
| 45 CFR 1068.6 | (Grantee Compliance with IRS Requirements for Withheld Federal Income and Social Security Taxes.) |
| 45 CFR 1069.1 | (Employee Participation in Direct Action.) |
| 45 CFR 1069.2 | (Limitations with Respect to Unlawful Demonstrations, Rioting, and Civil Disturbances.) |
| 45 CFR 1070.1 | (Public Access to Grantee Information.) |

No other portions of Chapter X of this title are applicable to such grants.

(2) Grants awarded with funds appropriated under section 232 of the Community Services Act shall also be subject to the applicable statutory requirements in sections 242, 243, and 244, and title VI of the Community Services Act. The Assistant Secretary will advise grantees of the nature of these requirements at or prior to the time of award.

(3) In the event that any provision of this part is inconsistent with a provision of law or a regulation referenced in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section with respect to any grant funded under section 232 of the Community Services Act, the provision of this part shall, to the extent of any such inconsistency, not be effective.

(b) *Grants under other statutory authority.* Grants awarded by the Assistant Secretary may be subject to regulations, other than those set forth in this part, which have been issued under the authority of statutes authorizing particular awards. In such a case, that fact will be set forth in the program announcement soliciting applications for such grants published in the Federal Register pursuant to § 63.3.

(c) *Other regulations applicable to grants under this part.* Federal financial assistance provided under this part shall be subject to the following additional regulations except as otherwise provided in this part:

(1) Part 75 of this title, establishing uniform administrative requirements, cost principles and audit requirements for grants by the Department of Health and Human Services.

(2) Part 80 of this title, effectuating the provisions of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and

(3) Part 16 of this title, establishing a Departmental Grant Appeals Board for the resolution of specified post-award grant disputes.

[40 FR 23295, May 29, 1975, as amended at 81 FR 3012, Jan. 20, 2016]
[No. 3454.]

#### Hall, Receiver, v. Rocky Ford Trading Co.

Judgment affirmed on *the*authority of the opinion in *Hall v. Burrell,*ante.

*Appeal from Otero District Court.*Hon. J. E. Rizer, Judge.

Mr. Fred A. Sabin, for appellant.

Messrs. Glenn & Gobin, for appellee.

Presiding Judge Scott

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case involves the same question as in the case of *G. M. Hall, Receiver of the State Bank of Rocky Ford v. Burrell,*decided at this term of court, and -upon the authority of that case the judgment is affirmed.

The order entered by the court below in this case, has inadvertently referred to the amount of the notes involved in the several cases now before the court, instead of the amount of proved claims on deposits. In this case, and all of the cases considered at this term, it was clearly intended that the *pro rata*payment ordered to be made, referred to the deposits or claims of each of the claimants and not to their several notes. The order of the district court *293should be corrected to correspond with this suggestion.

Decided May 13, A. D. 1912.

Rehearing denied July 8, A. D. 1912.

All the judges concurring.
Avalanche Hazard Reduction Final Environmental Impact Statement June 2008 GNP, FNF, MDT
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Martin Kremenstein, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of PowerShares DB US Dollar Index Bearish Fund, a series of PowerShares DB US Dollar Index
Trust; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                      |  | 
|Dated: March 29, 2013 |  |  |  | /s/ Martin Kremenstein 
|                      |  |  |  | Martin Kremenstein     
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 19-0289

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

JAMES MICHAEL WEBB, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including July 20, 2020, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 12 2020

06/12/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0289
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Greg S. Lea, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment #1 on Form 10-K/A of EnteroMedics 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 makethe 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. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) 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)) forthe registrant and have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned 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 isbeing prepared; 

b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in thisreport 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’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal 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 reasonablylikely 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: November 20, 2008
Exhibit 32

Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and

Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Rule
13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)

under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. 1350

Each of the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of PAETEC Holding Corp., hereby certifies that, on the date hereof:

1. The annual report on Form 10-K of PAETEC Holding Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2006 filed on the date hereof with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PAETEC Holding
Corp.



|                    |  |                                                             
|------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: April 2, 2007 |  | /s/ Arunas A. Chesonis                                      
|                    |  | Arunas A. Chesonis                                          
|                    |  | Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer
|                    | 
|Date: April 2, 2007 |  | /s/ Keith M. Wilson                                         
|                    |  | Keith M. Wilson                                             
|                    |  | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Herndon *v.*The State.

Argued July 16,

Decided August 17, 1906.

Indictment for murder. Before Judge Littlejohn. Sumter superior court. July 9, 1906.

*Williams (& Harper*and *J. A. Ansley,*for plaintiff in error.

*John G. Hart, attorney-general,*and *Frank A. Hooper, solicitor-general,*contra.

Reok, J.

1. The rulings of the court as to the admission of the testimony which were complained of, and the portions of the charge excepted to, were not erroneous for any of the reasons assigned.

2. The evidence authorized the verdict, and the judgment' of the court in refusing a new trial will not be disturbed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur, except Fish, O. J., absent.*
#### § 400.200 Scope.

This subpart specifies when, and the extent to which, Federal funding (FF) is available under this regulation in expenditures for determining eligibility and for providing assistance and services to refugees determined eligible under this part, and prescribes limitations and conditions on FF for those expenditures.
#### GLOVER *v.*THE STATE.

There was sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of the offense of vagrancy, and no reason appears for the reversal of the judgment of the lower court refusing a new trial.

Submitted October 17,-

Decided November 7, 1906.

Accusation of vagrancy. Before Judge Smith. City court of Yaldosta. July 27, 1906.

*S. M. Yarnedoe,*for plaintiff in error.

*James M. Johnson, solicitor,*contra.

Atkinson, J.

The defendant was convicted of vagrancy, on substantially the following evidence: With the exception of one month (while absent in Florida) she had resided in Yaldosta for one year. A policeman, the sheriff, and one merchant (witnesses), eaehi had frequently seen her at various hours of the day and night loitering about the streets with lewd women, and none had ever seen her do any work. She was frequently seen around barrooms and in “Eat row.” She had no property or visible means of support that they knew of. Each testified that she might have worked and might have had property without their knowledge. She admitted to the sheriff while on the way to jail that she had no money, but *568stated that she had been at work. Another witness testified that she had known defendant for a year in Valdosta, and had seen her loitering on the streets for may be a hundred and may be a thousand different times, and had never seen her at work but one time; that defendant had no husband nor any visible means of .support that .she knew of. This witness also testified as to seeing the defendant walking the streets with lewd women. She also testified that the defendant may have worked and may have had means of support without her knowing it.

When so many see the defendant so often at different times, never working but always loitering, mostly in questionable neighborhoods, and frequently beeping lewd company by day and by night, and where the officers of the law are unable to locate any property or visible means of support belonging to the defendant, and where she admitted that she had no money, but claimed to work for a living, it is reasonably certain that she belongs to that class which the law describes as vagrants, and we are not prepared to hold that the 'judge, in passing upon the evidence, erred by finding her guilty. The evidence supported the verdict, and no sufficient reason appears for reversing the judgment of the court below. See, in this connection, *Welborn*v. *State,*119 *Ga.*429.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Docket No: FAA-2015-0930 Dir ID: 2015-NM-040-AD
§ 1.03-30 Appeals from decisions or actions of the Marine Safety Center. ( a ) Any person directly affected by a decision or action of the Marine Safety Center involving tonnage measurement or which otherwise affects a new vessel or plans for a vessel to be built may, after requesting reconsideration of the decision or action by the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center, make a formal appeal, of that decision or action, via the Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Center, to the Commandant, in accordance with the procedures contained in § 1.03-15 of this subpart.
( b ) Any person directly affected by a decision or action of the Marine Safety Center not involving tonnage measurement but which otherwise affects an existing vessel, prior to initiating a formal appeal, must request review of that decision or action by the cognizant OCMI. Following review by the cognizant OCMI, the decision or action under review may be appealed to the District Commander, in accordance with the procedures contained in § 1.03-20 of this subpart.
[CGD 97-057, 62 FR 51040, Sept. 30, 1997, as amended by USCG-1998-4442, 63 FR 52188, Sept. 30, 1998]