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

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

PRISCILLA RASCO,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-09-00313-CR

Appeal from

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 20040D01290)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Priscilla Rasco attempts to appeal a conviction for possession of a chemical with intent to

unlawfully manufacture a controlled substance. Finding that Appellant has no right of appeal, we

dismiss the appeal. 

Rule 25.2 governs a defendant’s right of appeal in a criminal case. The rule provides that the

trial court must enter a certification of the defendant’s right of appeal in every case in which it enters

a judgment of guilt or other appealable order. TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(d). Further, the rule requires the

trial court to certify whether the defendant has a right of appeal. Id. 

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, including the trial court’s certification of the

defendant’s right to appeal as required by Rules 25.2(a)(2) and 25.2(d). The certification reflects

that the appeal “is a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The trial court

also certified that Appellant waived the right to appeal. On December 11, 2009, the Clerk’s Office

notified Appellant’s counsel that the certification reflects Appellant has no right of appeal and

requested counsel file a letter brief on the issue no later than December 21, 2009. No response has

been received. Based on the trial court’s certification, we dismiss the appeal.
January 29, 2010 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
H. Res. 54

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

February 28, 2001.

Whereas February is Black History Month, a month-long

celebration for Americans to reflect on both the history

and teachings of African Americans whose contributions

are still too little known;

Whereas Black History Month was started in 1976 and February was chosen because the birthdays of both Frederick

Douglass and Abraham Lincoln fall in that month;

Whereas African Americans were an integral part of settling

the West, arriving in covered wagons, establishing selfsufficient settlements, and filling numerous jobs from

barber to teacher, doctor to State legislator;

Whereas nearly one-third of the cowboys who helped build the

American West were of African American descent;

Whereas one of the best examples of an African American

prairie settlement is Dearfield, Colorado, an African

American agriculture community;

Whereas Oliver T. Jackson, an African American, inspired by

Booker T. Washington’s book Up From Slavery that

urged African Americans to return to the land and earn

their own way with their own hands, took these ideas to

heart and established Dearfield, Colorado, in 1910;
2

•HRES 54 EH

Whereas Oliver T. Jackson inspired 60 African American settlers to join in his agriculture colony, live off the land,

and become self-sufficient;

Whereas within 5 years, Dearfield, Colorado, had 44 wooden

cabins, over 600 farm acres, 2 churches, a school, a

boarding house, a blacksmith shop, a doctor’s office, a cement factory, and a filling station;

Whereas Oliver T. Jackson and those at Dearfield, Colorado,

reached their goal of becoming a prosperous, self-sufficient community, with a peak population of 700;

Whereas by the mid-1930’s, plagued by drought and the

Great Depression, the community dwindled down to 12,

including Oliver T. Jackson and his wife; and

Whereas Dearfield, Colorado, was subsequently abandoned

and is now in need of restoration in order to help fulfill

the goal of Black History Month and educate Americans

about the role of African Americans in the settling of the

American West: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) encourages all Americans to learn about the history of African Americans whose contributions are still

too little known;

(2) recognizes the role that African Americans, like

those at Dearfield, Colorado, greatly contributed to settling and shaping the American West; and

(3) supports the restoration of the site at Dearfield,

Colorado, in order to educate the American public about
3

•HRES 54 EH

the history and contributions of African Americans to

the West and the United States.

Attest:

Clerk.
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1177 KA 11-00576 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND WHALEN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JAMES WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (SHERRY A. CHASE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. SMALL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P. Franczyk, J.), rendered January 5, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of attempted arson in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of attempted arson in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 150.15). Contrary to defendant’s contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620, 621), we conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). Furthermore, viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally Bleakley , 69 NY2d at 495).
Finally, defendant contends that County Court erred in sentencing him as a second felony offender based upon a prior conviction in the State of South Carolina. By consenting to the use of that conviction as a predicate for sentencing enhancement purposes, defendant waived his right to appellate review of his contention ( see generally People v Walker , 96 AD3d 1481, 1482; People v Hicks , 12 AD3d 1044, 1045, lv denied 4 NY3d 799).

Entered: November 9, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Belknap,

June, 1896.

#### Wheeler *v.*Alton.

Towns are not liable for the board or wages of teachers in the district schools, and are not made liable by a vote of the town to raise money for the purpose of paying for them.

Assumpsit, for board furnished a school teacher and for money paid for her services. Facts found by the court. In 1888 the plaintiff was one of the school board of the school district of Alton, coterminous with the limits of the town of Alton. He examined the teacher, gave her a certificate of qualification, employed her to teach the school, furnished her with board during the school term, and paid her for her services. She was not examined by either of the other two members of the school board, and had no certificate of examination from either of them. In a suit brought by the plaintiff against the school district upon the same cause of action judgment was rendered in 1891 for the defendants (66 N. H. 540). At the annual district meeting in 1894, upon a proper article in the warrant, the school district voted to pay the plaintiff the amount he paid the teacher. At the annual town meeting in 1895, the town, upon a sufficient article in the warrant, voted to raise money to pay the plaintiff’s bill “as per vote of the school district last spring.”

*Edwin II. Shannon*and *James Rijan, Jr.,*for the plaintiff.

*Cogswell Sp Blacksione*and *E. A. C. B. Hibbard,*for the defendants.

*478Carpenter, C. J.

In his suit against the district the plaintiff failed because school districts are not liable for wages paid or for board furnished to teachers. *Wheeler*v. *Alton School District,*66 N. H. 540. This action is against the town which, though coterminous with the school district, is a distinct and separate organization. *Sargent*v. *District,*68 N. H. 528. The plaintiff does not claim that his action can be maintained unless the defendants — the town of Alton — are made liable by virtue of their vote in 1895 to raise money -to pay the plaintiff’s demand. A town cannot by vote make itself liable to an action on a demand which it is neither equitably nor legally bound to satisfy. *Bowles*v. *Landaff,*59 N. H. *164; Cole*v. *Bedford,*97 Mass. 326, note; *Usher*v. *Colchester,*33 Conn. 567. All money raised by a town for school purposes must be paid over to the school board, who are alone responsible, under a heavy penalty, for its lawful expenditure. P. S., *c.*88, *ss.*1, 2, 3, 4, 7. Towns have no power to require that money raised by them for schools shall be applied to any special purpose. The appropriation of the school money rests exclusively with the school board. P. S., *c.*88, *ss.*2, 7, 12; *c.*90, *s.*12; *c.*92, *ss.*1-14. The utmost effect that can be given to the vote, of the defendants in 1895 is to authorize the selectmen to assess, collect, and pay over to the school board, in addition to the amount required by law, a sum equal to the amount paid by the plaintiff to the teacher.

*Judgment for the defendants.*

Parsons, J., did not sit: the others concurred.
#### § 821.3 Description of docket numbering system.

In addition to sequential numbering of cases as received, each case formally handled by the Board will receive a letter prefix. These letter prefixes reflect the case type: “SE” for safety enforcement (certificate suspension/revocation) cases; “SM” (safety medical) for cases involving denials of medical certification; “CD” for cases involving non-medical certificate denials; “SR” for cases involving safety registration issues under 49 U.S.C. 44101 *et seq.;* “CP” for cases involving the imposition of civil penalties; “NA” for cases in which a petition for review or appeal is not accepted because of a patent procedural deficiency; and “EAJA” for cases involving applications for fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, governed by Part 826.
www.justice.org • 777 6th Street, NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20001 • 202-965-3500

January 19, 2015

Office of Regulations and Interpretations, Employee 

Benefits Security Administration, Room N-5655 

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue NW.

Washington, DC 20210

RE: Claims Procedure for Plans Providing Disability Benefits (Docket No. 2015-

29295) 

Dear Ms. Steen: 

The American Association for Justice (AAJ), formerly known as the Association of Trial 

Lawyers of America (ATLA), hereby submits comments in response to the Employee Benefits 

Security Administration’s (EBSA) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) regarding the 

proposed amendments to claims procedure regulations.

1

 

AAJ, with members in United States, Canada and abroad, works to preserve the 

constitutional right to trial by jury and access to justice when they are injured by the negligence 

or misconduct of others. AAJ members are very familiar with the claims procedure for plans 

providing disability benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 

(ERISA), and the challenges that claimants face when seeking to receive benefits from an 

employee benefit plan. AAJ applauds EBSA for making these necessary amendments to 

strengthen the current rules, as these updates and safeguards are critical to protecting some of the 

most vulnerable Americans. 

Claimants of disability benefits face a number of hurdles when pursuing their claims. 

Even though the law provides that a claimant must have a reasonable opportunity to pursue a full 

and fair review,2issues like procedural inconsistency, little insight into reasoning for why claims 

are denied, and an aggressive dispute posture by plans, have created an environment where this 

 

1 See 80 FR 72014. 

2 See 29 U.S.C. § 1133.
www.justice.org • 777 6th Street, NW • Suite 200 • Washington, DC 20001 • 202-965-3500

right is not adequately protected. As a result, claimants face an unreasonable risk that their 

claims could be improperly denied, the consequences of which can be drastic. 

However, as noted in this NPRM, EBSA recognizes these issues and has therefore 

proposed modifications to the current Section 503 Regulation.

3 AAJ believes this proposal will 

certainly help enhance confidence in the fairness of the system and fix dangerous procedural 

loopholes. Indeed, the proposals set out here will help eliminate major issues in the disability 

claims landscape by bolstering impartiality, transparency, access to information and procedural 

uniformity. 

AAJ appreciates the opportunity to submit comments and commends EBSA for these 

important proposals. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Zoë Oreck, AAJ’s 

Assistant Regulatory Counsel, at (202) 944-2869.

Sincerely,

Larry A. Tawwater

President 

American Association for Justice

 

3 80 FR 72015.
----

**EXHIBIT      32.5**

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

|   | (1) | the                Report fully complies with the requirements of § 13(a) or 15(d) of the                Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;                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:                March 14, 2006 | By:    | /s/                W. Douglas Hobbs    |
|------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------|
|                                     |   | W.                Douglas Hobbs        |
|                                     |   | President                and           |
|                                     |   | Chief                Executive Officer |
# currentwhlpa

# image1.png
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 447 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 447

Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1979) to amend title 49, 
  United States Code, to provide assistance for the reconstruction of 
                  certain air traffic control towers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 18, 2002

         Ms. Pryce of Ohio submitted the following resolution;

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1979) to amend title 49, 
  United States Code, to provide assistance for the reconstruction of 
                  certain air traffic control towers.
```
Dr. James R. McGee, DC, DABCO 

3350 White Plains Road 

The Bronx, NY 10467 

718-654-4113 

8/9110 

. Office ofConsumer Information and Insurance Oversight 


Department of Health and Human Services 


Attention: OC1I0-9991-IFC 


P.O. Box 8016 


Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 


Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to 


Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 


Below are my comments regarding the Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health 


Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient 


Protection and Affordable Care Act(pPACA): 


I believe that every effort should be made to increase the number ofindividuals covered by 


PPACA, especially as ofJanuary I, 2014 when most ofthe reform components (Insurance 


Exchanges, Subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) come into play. 


The average consumer has a broad definition of "benefits." Consumers view their health plan 


beyond the covered benefits, cost sharing, and the contribution levels associated with the plan. 


It is my opinion that the Rule may still result in some confusion to the marketplace in its 


application. For example, if an employer raised the copayment level beyond the maximum in one 


"} area (Le. outpatient services) but retained the copayment level for primary care doctor visits, 


"does that mean a loss of grandfather status? Clarity will be critical both for the employer and the 


em.ployee. 


Even by the most optimistic estimates, a substantial portion ofthe employee population will 


remain outside the PPACA as ofJanuary 2014 based on the current rules. While I understand the 


difficulty involved in making change, creating another large sub-population of excluded 


individuals will only add to costs, increase confusion, and mitigate the potential impact ofthe 


legislation. 


_ 	Th~ Rule !leeds tQ~ clear,_~as~~abl~,~d with no ~bj.guities.invo'ved in determining whether ~ ____ 

a group health plan is "in or out." The decisions the federal government makes today will 

determine the outcomes for tomorrow. We may need to make some difficult decisions to create 

a sustainable health care system that will support a growing economy in the future. That means 

getting as many citizens across the country participating at the beginning to make it work and 

delivering on its promises to retain their support. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this regulation. 

Sincerely, 

• .~McGee, DC, DABCO
#### § 609.3 Definitions.

As used herein:

*Elderly and handicapped persons* means those individuals who, by reason of illness, injury, age, congenital malfunction, or other permanent or temporary incapacity or disability, including those who are nonambulatory wheelchair-bound and those with semi-ambulatory capabilities, are unable without special facilities or special planning or design to utilize mass transportation facilities and services as effectively as persons who are not so affected.
# U.S. Central Command Biographies

U.S. Central Command Biographies RSS Feed

- Commander, General Michael E. Kurilla General Michael “Erik” Kurilla is from Elk River, Minnesota and commissioned into the Infantry from the United States Military Academy, West Point in 1988. Throughout his career, he has led Airborne, Mechanized, Stryker, Ranger and Joint Special Operations units during combat and operational deployments including Operation Just Cause (Panama), Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm (Saudi Arabia/Iraq), Operation Uphold Democracy (Haiti), Operation Joint Guardian (Kosovo-Macedonia), Operation Joint Resolve (Bosnia-Herzegovina), Operation Iraqi Freedom (Iraq), Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan), and Operation Inherent Resolve (Iraq).  General Kurilla spent every year from 2004 - 2014 leading conventional and special operations forces in the U.S. Central Command Area of Responsibility.
- Deputy Commander, Vice Admiral Brad Cooper Vice Adm. Brad Cooper is the son of a career Army Officer. He is a 1989 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, and earned a master’s degree in Strategic Intelligence from the National Intelligence University. He has also studied national security policy and international relations at Harvard and Tufts Universities.A career Surface Warfare Officer, he served on guided-missile cruisers, guided-missile destroyers, aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships. His ship commands include USS RUSSELL (DDG 59) and USS GETTYSBURG (CG 64).
- Chief of Staff, Major General Brandon R. Tegtmeier Chief of Staff, Major General Brandon R. Tegtmeier is from Naperville, IL and commissioned into the Infantry from the United States Military Academy, West Point in 1996 with a degree in Mechanical Engineering.  He also holds a Master of Science in Strategic Studies from the United States Army War College.
- Senior Enlisted Leader, Fleet Master Chief Derrick "Wally" Walters Fleet Master Chief Derrick A. Walters spent a majority of his childhood growing up in NYC but then
From: Dwight Smith [mailto:dwightsmith00@gmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 4:22 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: Regarding: RIN 1210-AB33

I want to make it very clear that any attempt to force my defined contribution retirement 

plans into ANY form of investment product or structure will be seen as a confiscation of 

capital for government purposes, and entirely unacceptable. 

I DO NOT accept, approve of, or even marginally tolerate any government efforts to 

control the investment of my savings. If someone is not capable of managing their funds 

without such "help", then they are probably hopeless regardless of the "help" you are 

offering in this respect.
SUPREME COURT.

#### Thomas M. Argall agt. Abraham Jacobs *et al.*

*New trial on the minutes amd on ground of surprise.*

Where a party moved at the circuit for a new trial on the minutes and on the ground of "surprise:”

*Meld,*that under section 1002 of the Code of Civil Procedure the motion could not be heard at the *cirauit,*in so far as “surprise ” was urged as a ground, but should be brought on at special term.

Section 999 discloses the grounds upon which a new trial may be granted at the circuit.

*Litiby*agt. *Straslwrgm'*(14 *Run,*120) applied in a case where fraud was charged in contracting a debt claimed to be discharged in bankruptcy.

• Motion for new trial on the *nwmtes*and upon the ground of surprise made at the term during which the trial was had.

*It. 8. Newcombs,*for motion.

*D. G. Briggs,*opposed.

Van Vorst, *J.*

This motion, in so far as it asks for a new trial on the ground of surprise, I think, must he made at special term.

Section 1002 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, that in a case not specified in the three preceding sections the motion for a new trial must, in the first instance, be heard and decided at special term. v

The preceding sections alluded to, do not include a motion for a new trial on the ground of surprise.

The grounds upon which a motion for a new trial may be *168urged before the judge who presided at the trial,, are stated in section 999, and do not embrace that of surprise.

Upon the question, therefore, of surprise raised by the affidavits I cannot pass.

Upon the trial, when my attention was called to the case of Libby, *Survivor, &c.,*agt. *Strasburger,*
      ***
      **I followed what I understood to be the decision of the general term in that case and admitted the evidence of fraud in contracting the debt, which the defendant claimed was discharged by the proceedings and decree in bankruptcy.

The evidence having been submitted to the- jury as to this question there is no reason why I should interfere with the verdict so far as it disposes of that subject.

The question as to whether the evidence was admissible under the- complaint is an important one and I do not think wholly free from doubt. ,

The rulings on this subject give occasion to the motion for relief on the ground of'surprise.

Upon reflection I think it best to adhere to the rulings on the trial; the question being one of law raised by the defendants’ exceptions can be more appropriately disposed of at the general term.

The motion is denied upon grounds not involving the question of surprise.

14 Hun, 120.