alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 40084 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Khristal Ford,**

Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:19

- CR

- 70

- 1

Before **King, Southwick,** and **Ho,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Khristal Ford
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). Ford has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED May 3, 2021
Lyle W. Cayce C lerk Case: 20-40084 Document: 00515845851 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/03/2021No. 20

- 40084

2 brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein , as well as
Ford ’s response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Acco rdingly, 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.
Ford’s motion to proceed pro se is **DENIED** as untimely. United States v. Wagner , 158 F.3d 901, 902

- 03 (5th Cir. 1998)

. Case: 20-40084 Document: 00515845851 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/03/2021
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.706 Transmission lines: Leakage surveys. Leakage surveys of a transmission line must be conducted at intervals not exceeding 15 months, but at least once each calendar year. However, in the case of a transmission line which transports gas in conformity with § 192.625 without an odor or odorant, leakage surveys using leak detector equipment must be conducted— ( a ) In Class 3 locations, at intervals not exceeding 71 ⁄ 2 months, but at least twice each calendar year; and
( b ) In Class 4 locations, at intervals not exceeding 41 ⁄ 2 months, but at least four times each calendar year.
[Amdt. 192-21, 40 FR 20283, May 9, 1975, as amended by Amdt. 192-43, 47 FR 46851, Oct. 21, 1982; Amdt. 192-71, 59 FR 6585, Feb. 11, 1994]
#### National Metal Edge Box Company, Respondent, *v.*Darwin B. Gotham, Appellant.

*National Metal Edge Box Co.*v. *Gotham,*132 App. Div. 947, affirmed.

(Argued October 28, 1910;

decided November 15, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered June 14, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to recover a sum of money paid by plaintiff in settlement of a suit against it for having used in its business patented articles unlawfully manufactured and sold to it by defendant.

*Henry Pwrcell*for appellant.

*Horace Stern*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook and Collin, JJ.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, April 6, 1995 (57), Para 57.36 Private Bills and Resolutions]
[Page 601]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.57.36  private bills and resolutions

  Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private bills and resolutions were 
introduced and severally referred as follows:

           By Mr. GILCHREST:
       H.R. 1466. A bill to authorize the Secretary of 
     Transportation to issue a certificate of documentation with 
     appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade 
     and fisheries for each of the vessels Sallie D and Memory 
     Maker; to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
           By Mr. LIPINSKI:
       H.R. 1467. A bill for the relief of Leland E. Person; to 
     the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 149 (Friday, August 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 43289]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3779]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, August 9, 2007, 3 p.m. to 
August 9, 2007, 5 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge 
Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal Register 
on July 24, 2007, 72 FR 40319.
    The meeting will be held August 14, 2007. The meeting time and 
location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: July 27, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-3779 Filed 8-2-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
NO. 07-07-0387-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

APRIL 30, 2008

______________________________

ANN MARIE ADKINS,

 Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 108 DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY; TH

NO. 54,543-E; HON. RICHARD DAMBOLD, PRESIDING

_______________________________

 Memorandum Opinion

_________________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.

Through one issue, Ann Marie Adkins challenges her convictions for engaging in

organized criminal activity related to the sale of controlled substances. The convictions,

in her view, should be reversed since the indictment failed to state an offense. We

overrule the issue and affirm the judgment.

Adkins argues that the indictment failed to allege offenses since it purported to

“charge [her] under Tex. Pen. Code Ann. 71.02(a)(5),” but alleged in count one

“possession with intent to deliver,” and in count two “sale of a controlled substance.”
2

Neither offense was “defined in the Texas Penal Code, but rather [is] found in the

Controlled Substances Act,” she continues. So, allegedly, “the charging instrument . . . did

not charge an ‘offense’ as defined in the . . . Penal Code, and the trial court [lacked]

jurisdiction to hear the matter.” Furthermore, her contention is founded upon the opinion

in State v. Colyandro, 233 S.W.3d 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). In Colyandro, the court

reiterated that provisions of the Penal Code found other than under titles one, two and

three cannot be imported into or made part of an offense created by some other code or

statute. Id. at 874-75. There, the State attempted to prosecute Colyandro and others for

conspiracy to commit an offense defined in the Texas Election Code. We reject the

argument. 

Here, the State indicted Adkins for engaging in organized criminal activities relating

to the possession and distribution of drugs. The specific offenses involved were found in

§71.02(a)(5) of the Texas Penal Code, not some other code. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§71.02 (Vernon Supp. 2007) (making criminal the act of unlawfully manufacturing,

delivering, dispensing, distributing or possessing a controlled substance with “the intent to

establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination or as

a member of a criminal street gang”). In other words, §71.02(a)(5) creates an offense in

and of itself; there is no need to leave the boundaries of the Penal Code to make the

offense complete. Nichols v. State, 653 S.W.2d 768, 774 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (so

holding). And, that circumstance removes the dispute before us from the penumbra of

Colyandro wherein the underlying offense was found in the Texas Election Code. 

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Brian Quinn
3

 Chief Justice

Do not publish.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7275

DAVID PERKINS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LT. W. DONOWAY; SGT. S. WILSON; SGT. L. RAMOS,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

EDWARD JOHNSON,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (1:20-cv-00811-DLB)

Submitted: January 20, 2022 Decided: January 25, 2022

Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and THACKER Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Perkins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

David Perkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying without prejudice

his motion to appoint counsel in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceedings. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and 

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan 

Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Perkins seeks to appeal is neither a final 

order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 

967 (4th Cir. 1987) (holding that denial of motion to appoint counsel is not immediately 

appealable). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### William Stevens, *Respondent, v.*James Stevens, *Appellant.*

Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Smith, P. J.
§ 194.103 Significant and substantial harm; operator's statement. ( a ) Each operator shall submit a statement with its response plan, as required by §§ 194.107 and 194.113, identifying which line sections in a response zone can be expected to cause significant and substantial harm to the environment in the event of a discharge of oil into or on the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines.
( b ) If an operator expects a line section in a response zone to cause significant and substantial harm, then the entire response zone must, for the purpose of response plan review and approval, be treated as if it is expected to cause significant and substantial harm. However, an operator will not have to submit separate plans for each line section.
( c ) A line section can be expected to cause significant and substantial harm to the environment in the event of a discharge of oil into or on the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines if; the pipeline is greater than 65 ⁄ 8 inches (168 millimeters) in outside nominal diameter, greater than 10 miles (16 kilometers) in length, and the line section— ( 1 ) Has experienced a release greater than 1,000 barrels (159 cubic meters) within the previous five years,
( 2 ) Has experienced two or more reportable releases, as defined in § 195.50, within the previous five years,
( 3 ) Containing any electric resistance welded pipe, manufactured prior to 1970, operates at a maximum operating pressure established under § 195.406 that corresponds to a stress level greater than 50 percent of the specified minimum yield strength of the pipe,
( 4 ) Is located within a 5 mile (8 kilometer) radius of potentially affected public drinking water intakes and could reasonably be expected to reach public drinking water intakes, or
( 5 ) Is located within a 1 mile (1.6 kilometer) radius of potentially affected environmentally sensitive areas, and could reasonably be expected to reach these areas.
[58 FR 253, Jan. 5, 1993, as amended by Amdt. 194-3, 63 FR 37505, July 13, 1998]
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 4/29/15 10:53 AM

Received: April 29, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8ikd-nce6

Comments Due: July 06, 2015

Submission Type: API

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0250

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Michael Walther

Address: 

500 Lake Cook Road, Suite 350

Deerfield, IL, 60015

Email: michaelcwalther@yahoo.com

Phone: 847-945-8888

Organization: Oak Wealth Advisors LLC

General Comment

The clarification of the Fiduciary Rule could not be coming at a better time. Consumers of 

financial services have come to distrust the industry and the need for a fiduciary approach to all 

financial advice is obvious. I hope that the final version of the regulations eliminates any 

loopholes and exceptions and explicitly states that those who provide investment advice must 

put their clients' best interests first. We expect this type of care elsewhere in society, yet the 

financial services industry has been able to get rules created allowing them to do what is in their 

best interest rather than their clients'. This is the best opportunity for the government to do what 

is right for society and that should be their role. If that creates extra expenses and requires 

additional training for those who will need to adjust their business practices to do what is best 

for their clients, so be it. They should be able to run profitable businesses while still doing what 

is best for their clients. 

Page 1 of 1

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481ac1a0a&format=xml&show... 4/29/2015
#### Andrew Holling and another, *Respondents, v.*Lathrop S. Sprague, *Appellant, Impleaded,*etc.—

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered in the Wayne County Court, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Hardin, J.
-----Original Message----- 

From: mbetsy6@yahoo.com [mailto:mbetsy6@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 1:23 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 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, 

Elizabeth Moore 

947 Primrose Ave 

Sunnyvale, CA 94086
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>      CHRYSLER FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
              FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
              FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5
              OF REGULATION  S-X

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                     DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                           $       230
<SECURITIES>                             472
<RECEIVABLES>                         14,311
<ALLOWANCES>                             191
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           0
<PP&E>                                 1,281
<DEPRECIATION>                           312
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        17,533
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      0
<BONDS>                               11,245
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                  25
<OTHER-SE>                             3,288
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          17,533
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       2,481
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         711
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         387
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       797
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          586
<INCOME-TAX>                             210
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      376
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                             376
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsKeeping the dream alive: Managing the Space Station Program, 1982 to 1986The management is described and analyzed of the formative years of the NASA Space Station Program (1982 to 1986), beginning with the successful initiative for program approval by Administrator James M. Beggs through to the decision to bring program management to Reston, Virginia. Emphasis is on internal management issues related to the implementation of the various phases of the program. Themes examined are the problem of bringing programmatic and institutional interests together and focusing them to forward the program; centralized versus decentralized control of the program; how the history of NASA and of the individual installations affected the decisions made; and the pressure from those outside NASA. The four sections are: (1) the decision to build the space station, (2) the design of the management experiment, (3) the experiment comes to life, and (4) the decision reversal.Document ID19900015684Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsLewin, Thomas J.*(Kansas Univ. Lawrence., United States)*Narayanan, V. K.*(Rutgers - The State Univ. New Brunswick, NJ., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJuly 1, 1990Publication InformationPublisher: NASASubject CategoryAdministration And ManagementReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:4272NASA-CR-4272Accession Number90N25000Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NASW-4248Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900015684.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
From: eddiebow@sbcglobal.net [mailto:eddiebow@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 7:38 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 24, 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, 

Eddie Goral 

2533B Manhattan Ave. 

Montrose, CA 91020
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, July 27, 1995 (103), Para 103.23 Recorded Vote]
[Page 1211]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.103.23  recorded vote

  A recorded vote by electronic device was ordered in the Committee of 
the Whole on the following amendment submitted by Mr. STOKES:

       Page 41, strike line 1 through ``(2)'' on line 5.
       Page 45, strike line 22 through page 46, line 7.

It was decided in the

Yeas

185

negative

Nays

235
```
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Friday, October 6, 1995 (124), Para 124.15 Additional Sponsors]
[Pages 1495-1496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.124.15  additional sponsors

  Under clause 4 of rule XXII, sponsors were added to public bills and 
resolutions as follows:

       H.R. 104: Mr. Foglietta, Mr. Manton, and Mr. Hutchinson.

[[Page 1496]]

       H.R. 325: Mrs. Kelly.
       H.R. 528: Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Oberstar, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. 
     Brewster, Mr. Paxon, and Mr. Calvert.
       H.R. 863: Mr. Olver, Mr. Fattah, and Mr. Fazio of 
     California.
       H.R. 1742: Mr. Johnston of Florida and Mr. Foglietta.
       H.R. 1749: Mr. Blute and Mr. Chabot.
       H.R. 2447: Mr. Jacobs.
       H. Con. Res. 26: Mr. Zimmer.

```
-----Original Message----- 

From: tobysweber@comcast.net [mailto:tobysweber@comcast.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 2:29 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 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, 

Toby Weber 

24104 Robinwood St. 

Leesburg, FL 34748