alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1503.613 Consolidation and separation of cases. ( a ) *Consolidation.* If two or more actions involve common questions of law or fact, the Chief Administrative Law Judge may do the following: ( 1 ) Order a joint hearing or trial on any or all such questions.
( 2 ) Order the consolidation of such actions.
( 3 ) Otherwise make such orders concerning the proceedings as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
( b ) *Consolidation shall not affect the applicability of this part.* Consolidation of two or more actions that individually meet the jurisdictional amounts set forth in § 1503.601(a)(2) shall not cause the resulting consolidated action to come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the district courts of the United States as specified in 49 U.S.C. 46301(d)(4)(A).
( c ) *Separate trials.* The Chief Administrative Law Judge, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any claim, or of any separate issue, or any number of claims or issues.
## NOS

. 12

- 24

- 00143 -CR 12

- 24

- 00144 -CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

PAUL ANTHONY ASHFOR D, JR. , APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 87TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Paul Anthony Ashford, Jr. pleaded “ guilty ” to indecency with a child by sexual contact and aggravated sexual assault of a child as a lesser included offense of sex abuse of a child,
continuous victim und er fourteen . I n accordance with the a g reed punishment recommendation,
the trial court sentenced Appellant to twenty years in prison for the indecency offense and thirty years in prison for aggravated sexual assault

. Appellant appealed.
T he clerk ’ s reco rd h as been filed and t he trial cour t’ s certificat ions stat e that th is is a plea bargain case, and th e defendant has no right of appeal . T he certifications are signed by Appellant and h is counsel. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d)

. The clerk ’ s record does not other wi se indicate that the trial court gave Appellant permission to ap peal. When the defendant is the appellant, the recor d mus t include the tri al court ’ s certification
of the defendant ’ s right of appeal. Id

. This Court must dismiss an appeal “if a certificat io n that
show s th e defe ndant has the right of appeal has not been m ade p art of the record.” Id

. Base d on2 our review o f the record , the tri a l court’s certification s app ear to accurately state that these are pl ea bargain case s and App ellant has no right to a ppeal

. See Dea rs v. State , 154 S

. W.3d 610 (T ex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appeals should review recor d to d et ermine whether

t rial court’s certifi cation is accurate). Because the trial court did not grant Appellant the right to appeal , we di smiss the a p peal s.

Opinion delivered June 12, 2024. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                       9
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         143,024
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                31,747
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      1,489
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         280,798
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           282,527
<LOANS>                                      1,228,332
<ALLOWANCE>                                     16,144
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,770,582
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,449,314
<SHORT-TERM>                                   140,274
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             22,494
<LONG-TERM>                                     32,879
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,075
<OTHER-SE>                                     113,546
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,770,582
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 25,677
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,479
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   696
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                30,852
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              11,948
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              14,411
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           16,441
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,600
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 17,767
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,245
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       4,556
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,556
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.83
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    0.00
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,827
<LOANS-PAST>                                     5,925
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                15,536
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,351
<RECOVERIES>                                       359
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               16,144
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            16,144
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
#### William H. Coffin and another, *Respondents, v.*Adolph Lange and another, Appellants.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-1435

DARIN T. STEELE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JESSE BROWN, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (CA-96-728-1)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darin T. Steele, Appellant Pro Se. Gill Paul Beck, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Darin T. Steele appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his Title VII complaint as time-barred. We have reviewed the record

and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Steele

v. Brown, No. CA-96-728-1 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 1998). 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
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.1


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

In connection with the Annual Report of Nam Tai Electronics, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certify, 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 our
knowledge, that:

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

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


Date: February 28, 2003                                /s/ Joseph Li
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             Joseph Li
                                             Chief Executive Officer


Date: February 28, 2003                               /s/ M. K. Koo
                                             ----------------------------------
                                             M. K. Koo
                                             Chief Financial Officer
§ 179.500-13 Fixtures. ( a ) Attachments, other than those mounted on tank covers or serving as threaded closures for the ends of the tank, are prohibited.
( b ) [Reserved]
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, May 22, 1995 (70), Para 70.2 Approval of the Journal]
[Page 803]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.70.2  approval of the journal

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. KIM, announced he had examined and 
approved the Journal of the proceedings of Thursday, May 18, 1995.
  Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal was approved.
```
-----Original Message----- 

From: dixielj@insightbb.com [mailto:dixielj@insightbb.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 8:00 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Dixie Johnson 

505 Virginia Ave 

Louisville, KY 40222
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 44150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3844]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; Final 
Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the 
Special Exposure Cohort

AGENCY: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives notice 
concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of 
employees at W.R. Grace, Erwin, Tennessee, as an addition to the 
Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational 
Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On June 22, 2007, as provided 
for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the 
following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

    Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) employees who were monitored or 
should have been monitored for potential exposure to thorium while 
working in any of the 100 series buildings or Buildings 220, 230, 
233, 234, 301, or 310 at the W.R. Grace site at Erwin, Tennessee for 
a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days from 
January 1, 1958, through December 31, 1970, or in combination with 
work days within the parameters established for one or more other 
classes of employees in the Special Exposure Cohort.

    This designation became effective on July 22, 2007, as provided for 
under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on July 22, 2007, 
members of this class of employees, define as reported in this notice, 
became members of the Special Exposure Cohort.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Elliott, Director, Office of 
Compensation Analysis and Support, National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health (NIOSH), 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS C-46, Cincinnati, 
OH 45226, Telephone 513-533-6800 (this is not a toll-free number). 
Information requests can also be submitted by e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ce818d8f9d8e8d8a8de0898198"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bdf2fefceefdfef9fe93faf2eb">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 2, 2007.
John Howard,
Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 07-3844 Filed 8-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-19-M


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

From: jmacduff@verizon.net [mailto:jmacduff@verizon.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:36 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Duffy 

4214 Kinloch Lane 

The Plains, VA 20198
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2035

To expand the boundary of the Manti-La Sal National Forest, and for

other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 13, 1995

Mr. ORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Resources

A BILL

To expand the boundary of the Manti-La Sal National

Forest, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Manti-La Sal National

5 Forest Boundary Adjustment Act of 1995’’.

6 SEC. 2. BOUNDARY MODIFICATION.

7 The boundary of the Manti-La Sal National Forest

8 is hereby modified and expanded as generally depicted on

9 the map entitled ‘‘Manti-La Sal National Forest Bound10 ary Expansion 1994’’ and dated September 22, 1994. The
2

•HR 2035 IH

1 map shall be on file and available for public inspection

2 in the office of the Chief of the Forest Service in Washing3 ton, District of Columbia. For purposes of section 7(a)(1)

4 of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965

5 (16 U.S.C. 460l–9(a)(1)), the boundary of the Manti-La

6 Sal National Forest, as modified by this Act, shall be

7 treated as if it were the boundary of that forest on Janu8 ary 1, 1965.

9 SEC. 3. MANAGEMENT.

10 (a) TRANSFER TO SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE

11 AND ADMINISTRATION AS PART OF FOREST.—Subject to

12 valid existing rights, administrative jurisdiction over the

13 approximately 320 acres of lands that are under the juris14 diction of the Bureau of Land Management and are de15 picted on the map referred to in section 2 is hereby trans16 ferred to the Secretary of Agriculture. Such lands are

17 added to and, subject to subsection (b), shall be adminis18 tered as part of the Manti-La Sal National Forest.

19 (b) EXISTING RIGHTS AND LAND USE AUTHORIZA20 TIONS.—No provision of this section may be construed to

21 affect valid existing rights, including interests in existing

22 land use authorizations, with respect to the Federal lands

23 generally depicted on the map referred to in section 2, ex24 cept that such rights and authorizations shall be adminis25 tered by the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the
3

•HR 2035 IH

1 Chief of the Forest Service, in accordance with this Act

2 and other applicable laws. Renewal or reissuance of any

3 such authorization shall be governed by the laws applicable

4 to the National Forest System and regulations issued by

5 the Secretary of Agriculture, except that the change in ad6 ministrative jurisdiction under this Act shall not constitute

7 in itself a ground to deny renewal or reissuance of any

8 such authorization.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         294,495
<SECURITIES>                                 1,469,411
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,031,782
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,031,782
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          182,779
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,031,618
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,182,615)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,031,782
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,657
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  213,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (143,506)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (143,506)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (143,506)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


</TABLE>
#### W. H. Wilson v. The State.

*No. 602.*

*Decided April 20.*

Statement of Facts—Authentication of.—Where, on appeal, it appears that the only authentication of the statement of facts is as follows: “Examined, approved, and ordered filed as a part of the records of this case;” *Held,*the authentication is not sufficient, and the statement of facts can not be considered by the court.

Appeal from the District Court of Baylor. Tried below before Hon. W. B. McGill.

The appellant was convicted of incest, and his punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

In view of the disposition made of this case, a statement.of the evidence can not be made.

*Holman & Glascow,*for appellant.

*Mann Trice,*Assistant-Attorney-General, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of incest. The statement of facts, or what purports to be, can not be considered, because not authenticated in any manner known to or required by law, The entire authentication to said statement of facts is as follows: “Examined, approved, and ordered filed as part of the records in this case. W. B. McGill, Judge Fiftieth District.” The attorneys did not sign it. The judge does not certify the attorneys failed to agree, and therefore he made up the purported statement of facts. He does not even certify that it is a statement of facts proved on the trial, or that it had any connection with the appellant’s case. Rev. Stats., arts. 1377, 1378; Hess v. The State, 30 Texas Crim. App., 477, and cited authorities. In the absence of the evidence, we can not intelligently pass upon the questions in regard to the admission of the testimony set out in the bills of exception. It may have been properly admitted, and, if not, may have been entirely harmless. This can not be determined without a review of the evidence adduced on the trial. For can we consider the exceptions reserved to the charges refused. They may not have been applicable to any issue raised upon the trial, and may have been properly rejected.

As presented by the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

*Affirmed.*

Judges all present and concurring.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2063 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2063

To disapprove sentencing guideline amendments relating to cocaine base.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 1995

 Mr. Emerson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To disapprove sentencing guideline amendments relating to cocaine base.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Sentencing Amendment Disapproval Act 
of 1995''.

SEC. 2. DISAPPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS RELATING TO EQUALIZATION OF CRACK AND 
              COCAINE POWDER QUANTITIES.

    In accordance with section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, 
Amendment number 5 of the ``Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines, 
Policy Statements, and Official Commentary,'' submitted by the United 
States Sentencing Commission to Congress on May 1, 1995, is hereby 
disapproved and shall not take effect to the extent it--
            (1) amends Sec. 2D1.1(c)(1) through (14) of the sentencing 
        guidelines;
            (2) inserts the following sentence in Sec. 2D1.1(c) of the 
        sentencing guidelines: ```Cocaine', for the purposes of this 
        guideline, includes cocaine hydrochloride, cocaine base, and 
        crack cocaine.'';
            (3) deletes ``1 gm of Cocaine Base (`Crack') = 20 kg of 
        marihuana'' from the Commentary to Sec. 2D1.1 of the sentencing 
        guidelines captioned ``Application Notes'' in Note 10 in the 
        subdivision captioned ``Cocaine and Other Schedule I and II 
        Stimulants''; and
            (4) provides reasons for the amendment, except the reasons 
        set forth in the seventh paragraph of the discussion entitled 
        ``Reasons for Amendment''.
                                 <all>
```
98-299.

#### State ex rel. Longworth v. O’Neill.

In Mandamus. *Sua sponte,*alternative writ granted.

Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, July 13, 1995 (94), Para 94.33 Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 1977]
[Page 1133]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.94.33  providing for the consideration of h.r. 1977

  Mr. SOLOMON, by direction of the Committee on Rules, reported (Rept. 
No. 104-186) the resolution (H. Res. 189) providing for the further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 1977) making apporpriations for the 
Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending Spetember 30, 1996, and for other purposes.
  When said resolution and report were referred to the House Calendar 
and ordered printed.
```