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

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-79,218-01

EX PARTE PHILLIP LEO TORRES, JR., Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 3616-A IN THE 100TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM HALL COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

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

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

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

assault and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends, inter alia, that he was denied his right to appeal through no fault of his

own. See Ex parte Axel, 757 S.W.2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988); Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25

(Tex. Crim. App. 1997). The trial recommends granting relief, and its recommendation is supported

by the writ record. Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal of the

judgment of conviction in Cause No. 3616 from the 100th District Court of Hall County. Applicant
-2-

is ordered returned to that time at which he may give a written notice of appeal so that he may then,

with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. 

Within ten days of the issuance of this opinion, the trial court shall determine whether

Applicant is indigent. If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court

shall immediately appoint an attorney to represent Applicant on direct appeal. All time limits shall

be calculated as if the sentence had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court

issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute an appeal, he must take affirmative steps

to file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court

issues. Applicant’s remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Copies of this opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division. 

Delivered: July 24, 2013

Do not publish
October 6, 1959

No. 63424.

Suit 4960.

#### United States *v.*S. P. Skinner Co., Inc.

C.D. 1958 affirmed June 30, 1959. C.A.D. 708.
#### Proven Pictures, Inc. of Maine vs. Strand Theatre Operating Co. et al.

Cumberland County.

Decided January 18, 1939.

*Julius Greenstein, Abraham Breitbard,*for plaintiff.

*Harry C. Libby, Eugene F. Martin,*for defendants.

In the instant case, the bill of exceptions, although allowed below, presents, in and of itself, no question of law for appellate review.

This Court can not, in acting on the exceptions, consider the report of the evidence, nor the rulings of law, nor the conclusions of law of the justice before whom, jury waived, the trial (subject to reserving exceptions) was, except the evidence and the rulings and conclusions are made a part of the bill of exceptions. They are not so made. There is in the bill no affirmative showing of reversible error. The excepting defendants take nothing by their fatally defective exceptions. *Jones*v. *Jones,*101 Me., 447, 450, 64 A., 815; *Doylestown Agricultural Co.*v. *Brackett, Shaw & Lunt Co.,*109 Me., 301, 84 A., 146; *Hurley*v. *Farnsworth,*115 Me., 321, 98 A., 821; *Feltis*v. *Power Co.,*120 Me., 101, 112 A., 906; *State*v. *Belanger,*127 Me., 327, 143 A., 170. Exceptions overruled.
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲ 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

05/31

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.03 N 77.49 W Meters AGL
Case 2:06-cr-00255-JLR Document 155 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cr-00255-JLR Document 155 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 2
|What's New ·

What's Next ·

Site Map ·
A-Z Index ·
Careers ·

RSS ·
All Videos ·

Current FAQs |  | Search Advanced Search | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- | 

Aboutthe Fed
    News& Events
    MonetaryPolicy
    BankingInformation& Regulation
    PaymentSystems
    EconomicResearch& Data
    Consumer Information
    CommunityDevelopment
    ReportingForms
    Publications


skip to content 
 Home Economic Research & Data Statistical Releases and Historical Data
 DDP Print
   Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 Current Release
Release Dates
Enhanced Financial Accounts
Financial Accounts Guide
Technical Q&As
Announcements
  F.229 Proprietors Equity in Noncorporate Business  
 Billions of dollars; quarterly figures are seasonally adjusted annual rates Description
Series code
2014
2015
2016
2015   Q3
2015   Q4
2016   Q1
2016   Q2
2016   Q3
2016   Q4
LineHouseholds and nonprofit organizations; proprietors' equity in noncorporate business
	FA152090205
	140.3
	19.2
	24.9
	49.3
	-2.9
	24.1
	2.2
	73.1
	0.2
	1Nonfinancial noncorporate business; proprietors' equity in noncorporate business (net worth)
	FA112090205
	138.3
	16.9
	15.8
	25.1
	8.8
	36.3
	11.3
	8.3
	7.4
	2Security brokers and dealers; proprietors' equity in noncorporate business
	FA662090205
	2.0
	2.3
	9.1
	24.2
	-11.7
	-12.2
	-9.1
	64.9
	-7.2
	3 Back to top
   Home Economic Research & Data
 Accessibility Contact Us Disclaimer Website Policies FOIA
 PDF Reader
PUBLIC LAW 106–448—NOV. 6, 2000 114 STAT. 1939

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—S. 2812 (H.R. 4838):

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):

July 21, considered and passed Senate.

Oct. 10, considered and passed House, amended, in lieu of H.R. 4838.

Oct. 19, Senate concurred in House amendment.

Æ

Public Law 106–448

106th Congress

An Act

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide a waiver of the oath

of renunciation and allegiance for naturalization of aliens having certain disabilities.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF OATH OF RENUNCIATION AND ALLEGIANCE

FOR NATURALIZATION OF ALIENS HAVING CERTAIN

DISABILITIES.

Section 337(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

1448(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The

Attorney General may waive the taking of the oath by a person

if in the opinion of the Attorney General the person is unable

to understand, or to communicate an understanding of, its meaning

because of a physical or developmental disability or mental impairment. If the Attorney General waives the taking of the oath by

a person under the preceding sentence, the person shall be considered to have met the requirements of section 316(a)(3) with respect

to attachment to the principles of the Constitution and well disposition to the good order and happiness of the United States.’’.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendment made by section 1 shall apply to persons

applying for naturalization before, on, or after the date of the

enactment of this Act.

Approved November 6, 2000.

Applicability.

8 USC 1448 note.

Nov. 6, 2000

[S. 2812]
(Reap. Dec. 11069)

#### Panation Trade Co. *v.*United States

Entry No. 2668, etc.

(Decided September 27, 1965)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Judge:

The following appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, are before me for decision on a written stipulation, reading as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court as follows:

> 1. That the involved merchandise consists of cigarette lighters exported from Japan after the effective date of the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (T.D. 54165) ; that the involved merchandise is not identified on the Final List published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant thereto (T.D. 54521) and *604that appraisement was accordingly made under Section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the said Customs Simplification Act.

> 2. That the merchandise, the facts, and the issues herein are the same in all material respects as those involved in *Panation Trade Co.*v. *United States,*A.R.D. 181, and that the record in the said cited ease may be incorporated herein.

> 3. That on or about the date of exportation of the involved merchandise, the prices at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold or offered for sale in the principal markets in the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses, incidental to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, were the invoice unit ex-factory prices.

> 4. That the appeals enumerated in Schedule “A” annexed may be submitted for decision upon this stipulation and upon the incorporated record, the same being limited to the merchandise and the issues described hereinabove and abandoned in all other respects.

On the agreed facts and following the cited decision on the law, I find that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, as hereinabove identified, is export value, as defined in section 402(b), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, and hold that such statutory values for the involved merchandise are the invoice unit ex-factory prices.

As to all other merchandise included on the invoices covered by the entries involved herein, the appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 704 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       October 4, 2007.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3246) to amend title 40, United States 
Code, to provide a comprehensive regional approach to economic and 
infrastructure development in the most severely economically distressed regions 
in the Nation. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the 
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in the 
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All 
points of order against provisions of the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to 
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and (2) one motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 3246 pursuant to this resolution, 
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone 
further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 
Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-88,268-01

EX P ARTE HERMAN DAV IS, App licant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. W92-43184-V( A) IN THE 292nd DISTRICT COURT

F ROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam . K

E A S L E R , J., not participating.

O R D E R Pursuant to the provision s o f Ar t i cle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 6 7 ). Appl icant was convicted of the offense of ag g rava ted robbe ry

and sente nced to imprisonment for e ighty y ear s. Applicant alleg es, among other things, that the hear ing office r at his parole revoc ation hear ing improperly denied him appointed counsel, and that he was improperly denied a preliminary parole revoc ation hear ing afte r reque sting such a hear ing with his parole office r. The trial court has not enter ed finding s of fac t or conclusions of law reg arding these is s u es . Ho we ver, the State has reque sted that these two issues be desig nated f or re solution by

the habe as cour

t.As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the t rial

court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d). I n the appropr iate case , the trial court may rely on its persona l

rec ollection. Id

. I f the trial c ourt elec ts to hold a hearing , it shall determine whether Applicant is indig ent. I f Applicant is indige nt an d wi shes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent Applicant a t the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t and conclusions of law in reg ard to A pplicant’s claim that the hear ing office r at his parole revoc ation hear ing improperly denied him appointed counsel. The trial court shall als o m ak e fi ndings of fac t and conclusions of law in reg ard to Applicant’s claim that he was i m proper ly denied a preliminary parole revoc ation hear ing afte r reque sting such a hear ing with his parole office r. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claim for ha

beas c orpus re lief. This application will be held in abey ance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 d ay s o f t h i s order

. A supplemental transcr ipt containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hear ing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of the date of this order. Any extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court. Filed: Apr il 18, 2018 Do not publish
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

LAURO AGUILAR CANCHE,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-5351 RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Defendant’s Motion in Limine Re:

Pending Nebraska Charges [Dkt. #186] and Motion to Join Co-Defendants’ Motions [Dkt. #187].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court finds and rules as follows:

Defendant seeks to exclude evidence regarding his pending federal charges in Nebraska. The

government argues that the Nebraska charges are “inextricably intertwined” with the charges he faces in this

district or are admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The current trial date is June 5, 2007. The Court, if

necessary, will hear brief argument on this issue at trial either before a jury is selected or after jury selection

but prior to the government’s opening statement. The Clerk shall re-note this motion [Dkt. #186] for June 5,

2007.

Defendant also seeks to join co-defendants’ motions. Because all the other defendants have entered

guilty pleas, except Gallo-Martinez who has never been arrested and is currently a fugitive, there are no

pending motions of the co-defendants. As such, this motion [Dkt. #187] is DENIED. If there is a motion that

Case 3:06-cr-05351-RBL Document 255 Filed 05/10/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 2

was filed by a co-defendant that the Court did not earlier rule on substantively that defendant Laura Aguilar

Canche wishes to adopt as his own, he shall file a new motion specifically joining in that co-defendant’s motion

on or before May 14, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 9th day of May, 2007.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cr-05351-RBL Document 255 Filed 05/10/07 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DETENTION ORDER

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W. D. OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff,

v.

PEDRO PICAZO (SANCHEZ),

 Defendant.

Case No. 05-5231M

DETENTION ORDER

THE COURT, having conducted a detention hearing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3142, finds that no condition or combination

of conditions which defendant can meet will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required and/or the safety of any

other person and the community.

This finding is based on 1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) charged, including whether the offense is a

crime of violence or involves a narcotic drug; 2) the weight of the evidence against the person; 3) the history and characteristics of

the person including those set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g)(3)(A)(B); and 4) the nature and seriousness of the danger release would

impose to any person or the community.

Findings of Fact/ Statement of Reasons for Detention

Presumptive Reasons/Unrebutted:

 ( ) Conviction of a Federal offense involving a crime of violence. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(A)

 ( ) Potential maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death. 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(B)

 ( X ) Potential maximum sentence of 10+ years as prescribed in the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.§801 et seq.), the

Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C.§951 et seq.) Or the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (46

U.S.C. App. 1901 et seq.)

 ( ) Convictions of two or more offenses described in subparagraphs (A) through (C) of 18 U.S.C.§3142(f)(1) of two or more

State or local offenses that would have been offenses described in said subparagraphs if a circumstance giving rise to

Federal jurisdiction had existed, or a combination of such offenses.

Safety Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant is currently on probation/supervision resulting from a prior offense.

 ( ) Defendant was on bond on other charges at time of alleged occurrences herein.

 ( X ) Defendant’s prior criminal history.

 ( ) 

Flight Risk/Appearance Reasons:

 ( ) Defendant’s lack of community ties and resources..

 ( ) Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer.

 ( X ) Detainer(s)/Warrant(s) from other jurisdictions.

 ( ) Failures to appear for past court proceedings.

 ( ) Past conviction for escape.

Order of Detention

< The defendant shall be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for confinement in a corrections facility

separate, to the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody pending appeal,

without prejudice to review..

< The defendant shall be afforded reasonable opportunity for private consultation with counsel.

< The defendant shall on order of a court of the United States or on request of an attorney for the Government, be delivered

to a United States marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with a court proceeding.

 December 8, 2005.

s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. Kelley Arnold, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cr-05895-FDB Document 5 Filed 12/08/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF REALTY FINANCE CORPORATION



|                              |  |                                           
|----------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Name                          |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Formation
|                              | 
|RFC Holdings, LLC             |  | Delaware                                  
|                              | 
|RFC TRS, Inc.                 |  | Delaware                                  
|                              | 
|RFC TRS, LLC                  |  | Delaware                                  
|                              | 
|RFC Holdings IV, LLC          |  | Delaware                                  
|                              | 
|RFC Holdings CDO Funding, LLC |  | Delaware                                  
|                              | 
|RFC CDO 2006-1, Ltd.          |  | Cayman Islands                            
|                              | 
|RFC CDO 2006-1, LLC           |  | Delaware                                  
|                              | 
|RFC CDO 2006-1 Depositor, LLC |  | Delaware                                  
|                              | 
|RFC CDO 2007-1, Ltd           |  | Cayman Islands                            
|                              | 
|RFC CDO 2007-1, LLC           |  | Delaware                                  
|                              | 
|RFC Trust I                   |  | Delaware
APPENDIX F

Cover (A) and constancy (B) of selected species of shrubs and herbs in the principal communities. Communities sampled

by only one or two plots are not included. Numbers are percent; + is < 0.05% (from Zeigler, 1978).

http://www.nps.gov/crla/lodgepole/lodgepoleaf.htm

Date: 29-May-2001

CRATER LAKE

Report: Lodgepole Pine—History and Management

Pinus

contorta/

CarexStipa

Pinus

contorta/

CarexLupinus

Abies

magnifica var.

shastensisTsuga

mertensiana/

CarexLupinus

Abies

lasiocarpa/

Haplopappus/

Aster-Elymus

Tsuga

mertensiana/

Vaccinium

Mixed conifer/

Arctostaphylos

A B A B A B A B A B A B

Lupinus albicaulis 2.6 100 4.2 90

Haplopappus bloomeri + 13 .9 50 + 5

Eriogonum martifolium .1 67 .2 71 + 10 + 6

Viola praemorsa + 13 .1 43 + 5 + 17

Microseris alpestris + 7 + 36 + 10

Spraguea umbellata .1 73 .4 14 + 10

Lupinus lepidus var. lobii .1 33 + + + 10

Luzula hitchcockii + 7 .1 7 .9 40 .6 19

Phlox caespitosa .2 14 .5 25 1.1 38 + 14

Lupinus latifolius 1.1 5 11.0 100 4.4 50

Elymus glaucus .2 5 3.3 81

Haplopappus greenei .8 7.5

Aster ledophyllus var. covillei + 5 .6 56

Penstemon rydbergii .8 50

Arctostaphylos nevadensis + 7 .3 25 3.2 50 17.2 100

Vaccinium scoparium + 10 .6 25 9.6 100

Claytonia lanceolata + 14 .3 25

<<< PREVIOUS CONTENTS NEXT >>>

Crater Lake NP: Lodgepole Pine: History and Management Page 1 of 1

http://web.archive.org/web/20081009014034/http://www.nps.gov/archive/crla/lodgepole/lodgepoleaf.htm 11/29/2011