alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00029-CR

JAMES DAVID HAYNES, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 14F0359-005

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Carter,* JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter 

________________________________

*Jack Carter, Justice, Retired, Sitting by Assignment
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following a jury trial, James David Haynes, Jr., was convicted of three counts of aggravated 

sexual assault of a child and sentenced to life in prison. Haynes’ sentence was imposed November 21, 

2014, and he filed a motion for new trial December 23, 2014, and a notice of appeal February 11, 2015. 

The issue before us is whether Haynes properly invoked this Court’s jurisdiction by timely perfecting 

his appeal. Because we find that Haynes’ notice of appeal was not timely filed, we also conclude that 

we are without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. 

A timely filed notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. See Olivo v. 

State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Rule 26.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure prescribes the time period in which a notice of appeal must be filed to perfect an appeal in 

a criminal case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2. A criminal defendant’s notice of appeal is timely if filed 

within thirty days after the date sentence is imposed or suspended or within ninety days after sentencing 

if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a), (b); Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 

522.

In this case, Haynes’ motion for new trial was filed thirty-two days after the date sentence was 

imposed, making it untimely. Consequently, Haynes did not trigger the ninety-day filing period that 

accompanies a timely filed motion for new trial, and his notice of appeal was due within thirty days of 

the date sentence was imposed. Since Haynes’ notice of appeal was not filed within this thirty-day 

window, it was untimely, and we are without jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

By letter dated March 20, 2015, we notified Haynes of this potential defect in our jurisdiction 

and afforded him an opportunity to respond. Haynes filed a response in which he conceded that our 

jurisdiction is wanting.
3

In light of the foregoing, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: April 6, 2015

Date Decided: April 7, 2015

Do Not Publish
Editorial Note on Part 385
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 385 appear at 66 FR 49872, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 385.501 Roadability review. ( a ) FMCSA will perform roadability reviews of intermodal equipment providers, as defined in § 390.5 of this chapter.
( b ) FMCSA will evaluate the results of the roadability review using the criteria in appendix A to this part as they relate to compliance with parts 390, 393, and 396 of this chapter.
-----Original Message----- 

From: klcomegys@hotmail.com [mailto:klcomegys@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:29 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, 

Karen Comegys 

1725 Cedar St 

Santa Monica, CA 90405
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1386.html[7/23/2015 6:35:54 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvm-xbk7

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

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-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1386

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Charlene Dubberly

General Comment

Please leave our retirement making plans ALONE. Believe it or not we have the capacity to make our own way.

 It is none of the governments business. I believe you the government are trying to take control and be as a

 dictatorship. 

We want our America back Mr Obama 

Thank you

Charlene Dubberly
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0945.html[7/21/2015 6:42:19 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-pqu3

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

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-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0945

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Lisa Anonymous

Address:

Sioux Falls, SD,

General Comment

I'm smart enough, I can plan for my own retirement!
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6431

JOHN DWAYNE GARVIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CHUCK WRIGHT; MAJOR NEAL URCH; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 

OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(2:13-cv-00442-DCN)

Submitted: September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Dwayne Garvin, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina; 

Lisa Robette Claxton, Virginia Merck Dupont, SPARTANBURG COUNTY 

ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

John Dwayne Garvin seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition

Garvin filed while he was a state pretrial detainee. The order 

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the 

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable 

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Garvin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Garvin’s motions for a certificate of appealability and for 

appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with 
3

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
Editorial Note on Part 376
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 376 appear at 66 FR 49871, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 376.22 Exemption for private carrier leasing and leasing between authorized carriers. Regardless of the leasing regulations set forth in this part, an authorized carrier may lease equipment to or from another authorized carrier, or a private carrier may lease equipment to an authorized carrier under the following conditions: ( a ) The identification of equipment requirements in § 376.11(c) must be complied with;
( b ) The lessor must own the equipment or hold it under a lease;
( c ) There must be a written agreement between the authorized carriers or between the private carrier and authorized carrier, as the case may be, concerning the equipment as follows: ( 1 ) It must be signed by the parties or their authorized representatives.
( 2 ) It must provide that control and responsibility for the operation of the equipment shall be that of the lessee from the time possession is taken by the lessee and the receipt required under § 376.11(b) is given to the lessor until: ( i ) Possession of the equipment is returned to the lessor and the receipt required under § 376.11(b) is received by the authorized carrier; or
( ii ) In the event that the agreement is between authorized carriers, possession of the equipment is returned to the lessor or given to another authorized carrier in an interchange of equipment.
( 3 ) A copy of the agreement must be carried in the equipment while it is in the possession of the lessee.
( 4 ) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use, by authorized carriers, private carriers, and all other entities conducting lease operations pursuant to this section, of a master lease if a copy of that master lease is carried in the equipment while it is in the possession of the lessee, and if the master lease complies with the provisions of this section and receipts are exchanged in accordance with § 376.11(b), and if records of the equipment are prepared and maintained in accordance with § 376.11(d).
( d ) Authorized and private carriers under common ownership and control may lease equipment to each other under this section without complying with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section pertaining to identification of equipment, and the requirements of paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(4) of this section pertaining to equipment receipts. The leasing of equipment between such carriers will be subject to all other requirements of this section.
[49 FR 9570, Mar. 14, 1984, as amended at 49 FR 47269, Dec. 3, 1984; 49 FR 47851, Dec. 7, 1984; 62 FR 15424, Apr. 1, 1997; 63 FR 40838, July 31, 1998]
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 Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration 

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee Open Meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC). The meeting will take place on Thursday, October 11, 2007, starting at 8 a.m. at the Federal Aviation Administration Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC., in the Bessie Coleman Conference Center, located on the 2nd Floor. This will be the forty-sixth meeting of the COMSTAC. 

                        The proposed agenda for the meeting will feature briefings on Operationally Responsive Space and China's space activities, a report on activities in the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST), and COMSTAC Working Group reports. An agenda will be posted on the FAA Web site at                        *http://ast.faa.gov.*                         Meetings of the COMSTAC Working Groups (Technology and Innovation, Reusable Launch Vehicle, Risk Management, and Launch Operations and Support) will be held on Wednesday, October 10, 2007. For specific information concerning the times and locations of the working group meetings, contact the Contact Person listed below.                     

Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should inform the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Brenda Parker (AST-100), Office of Commercial Space Transportation, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 331, Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-3674; e-mail                         *brenda.parker@faa.gov.*

Issued in Washington, DC, September 7, 2007. 

Patricia G. Smith, 

Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation. 

[FR Doc. 07-4607 Filed 9-13-07; 11:09 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
-----Original Message----- 

From: steinitz@umich.edu [mailto:steinitz@umich.edu] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 11:56 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 27, 2010 

It is high time to overcome the misguided idea that mental health is 

somehow different than physical health. The human organism is a complex 

one with many systems combining to make life possible. It makes no 

sense to exclude or diminish medical care for some of those systems! 

Make sure health care coverage for mental health is included in a 

single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

George Steinitz 

2432 Bass Road 

Campo, CA 91906
-----Original Message----- 

From: KARETHER@YAHOO.COM [mailto:KARETHER@YAHOO.COM] 

Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 9:28 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 29, 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, 

Karen Meyer 

3 Riverside Dr. 

Wallingford, CT 06492
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsModal interaction in postbuckled plates. TheoryPlates can have more than one buckled solution for a fixed set of boundary conditions. The theory for the identification and the computation of multiple solutions in buckled plates is examined. The theory predicts modal interaction (which is also called change in buckle pattern or secondary buckling) in experiments on certain plates with multiple theoretical solutions. A set of coordinate functions is defined for Galerkin's method so that the von Karman plate equations are reduced to a coupled set of cubic equations in generalized coordinates that are uncoupled in the linear terms. An iterative procedure for solving modal interaction problems is suggested based on this cubic form.Document ID19900017805Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsThurston, Gaylen A.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateNovember 1, 1989Subject CategoryStructural MechanicsReport/Patent NumberL-16573NASA-TP-2943NAS 1.60:2943Accession Number90N27121Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-63-01-09Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017805.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
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0704.html[7/21/2015 10:00:33 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-vcsq

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

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-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0704

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Patricia Henry

General Comment

Time to leave the people alone. Obama you have done enough damage we are capable of planning for our own

 retirement. Just get your bags packed. It's time for you to leave.
# EUR-Lex - 52004AP0078(01) - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52004AP0078(01)

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community and its Member States, of a Protocol to the Agreement on Cooperation and Customs Union between the European Economic Community and the Republic of San Marino, regarding the participation, as contracting parties, of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic, pursuant to their accession to the European Union (COM(2004)0258 — C6-0048/2004 — 2004/0083(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 226 E , 15/09/2005 P. 0039 - 0039 *

P6_TA(2004)0078

Additional Protocol to the EC-San Marino Cooperation and Customs Union Agreement *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community and its Member States, of a Protocol to the Agreement on Cooperation and Customs Union between the European Economic Community and the Republic of San Marino, regarding the participation, as contracting parties, of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic, pursuant to their accession to the European Union (COM(2004)0258 — C6-0048/2004 — 2004/0083(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2004)0258) [1],

- having regard to Articles 133, 308 and 300(2), second sentence of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0048/2004),

- having regard to Rules 51, 83(7) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A6-0062/2004),

1. Approves the conclusion of the protocol to the agreement;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the Republic of San Marino.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1106.html[7/22/2015 11:12:43 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-e1id

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

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-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1106

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

Leave retirements alone.
#### § 29.916 Who bears the burden of proof in a Contract Disputes Act claim?

The Tribe bears the burden of proof to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, the validity of a Contract Disputes Act claim.
§ 39.23 What are the requirements concerning contractors to owners and operators of passenger vessels? ( a ) If, as a PVO, you enter into a contractual or other arrangement or relationship with any other party to provide services to or affecting passengers, you must ensure that the other party meets the requirements of this Part that would apply to you if you provided the service yourself.
( b ) As a PVO, you must include an assurance of compliance with this Part in your contracts or agreements with any contractors who provide to the public services that are subject to the requirements of this Part. Noncompliance with this assurance is a material breach of the contract on the contractor's part. With respect to contracts or agreements existing on November 3, 2010, you must ensure the inclusion of this assurance by November 3, 2011 or on the next occasion on which the contract or agreement is renewed or amended, whichever comes first. ( 1 ) This assurance must commit the contractor to compliance with all applicable provisions of this Part in activities performed on behalf of the PVO.
( 2 ) The assurance must also commit the contractor to implementing directives issued by your Complaints Resolution Officials (CROs) under § 39.103.
( c ) As a PVO, you must also include such an assurance of compliance in your contracts or agreements of appointment with U.S. travel agents. With respect to contracts or agreements with U.S. travel agents existing on November 3, 2010, you must ensure the inclusion of this assurance by November 3, 2011 or on the next occasion on which the contract or agreement is renewed or amended, whichever comes first. You are not required to include such an assurance in contracts with foreign travel agents.
( d ) You remain responsible for your contractors' and U.S. travel agents' compliance with this part and with the assurances in your contracts with them.
( e ) It is not a defense to an enforcement action under this Part that your noncompliance resulted from action or inaction by a contractor or U.S. travel agent.