alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed December 9, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00370-CR

EARNEST DEMONE HEBERT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1364909

ORDER

This appeal has been pending for over a year. When the appeal was filed, 

appellant was not represented by appellate counsel. Appellant’s brief was 

originally due July 23, 2013. When the brief was not filed after appellant was 

granted two extensions of time to obtain funds to retain an attorney, the court 

abated the appeal and requested that the trial court make a determination about 

whether appellant was entitled to appointed counsel. After a hearing, the trial court 

determined appellant is not indigent. On December 17, 2013, we reinstated the 

appeal and ordered appellant to file a brief on or before January 21, 2014. 

Appellant then requested and was granted two extensions of time until May 27, 
2014, with a notation that no further extensions would be granted absent 

exceptional circumstances. No brief was filed. 

On July 24, 2014, the court again abated the appeal and requested the trial 

court to make findings about whether appellant had effectively abandoned the 

appeal by failing to make arrangements to file a brief, as set out in Texas Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 38.8(b). On August 15, 2014, a record of the second 

abatement hearing was filed. At that hearing, retained counsel, Tom Zakes, 

appeared for appellant. Counsel informed the court that he believed he could file 

the brief by November 15, 2014. Accordingly, we reinstated the appeal and set 

appellant’s brief due Monday, November 17, 2014. No brief was filed. On 

November 18, 2014, the court notified appellant that the brief was past due. 

On December 5, 2014, counsel filed a motion for extension of time to file 

appellant’s brief, asserting that this was the first motion to extend time to file the 

brief. While the December 5 motion is counsel’s first extension request, we note 

that appellant was granted numerous extensions of time before counsel was 

retained, and retained counsel was granted 90 days to file the brief after he made 

an appearance in this case. We GRANT the motion, but issue the following order:

We order Tom Zakes to file a brief with the clerk of this court on or before

December 31, 2014. No further extensions will be granted absent exceptional 

circumstances. If counsel does not timely file appellant’s brief as ordered, the court 

may issue an order abating the appeal and directing the trial court to conduct a 

hearing to determine the reason for the failure to file the brief.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and McCally.
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 133 (Friday, July 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 40100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16245]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9015-8]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 06/30/2014 through 07/03/2014
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20140186, Final EIS, USFS, NM, Valles Caldera National 
Preserve--Landscape Restoration and Stewardship Plan, Review Period 
Ends: 08/11/2014, Contact: Marie Rodriguez 505-661-3333.
EIS No. 20140187, Second Final Supplement, USACE, WA, Grays Harbor 
Navigation Improvement Project, Review Period Ends: 08/11/2014, 
Contact: Leah Wickstrom 206-764-3652.
EIS No. 20140188, Final EIS, NPS, FL, Canaveral National Seashore Final 
General Management Plan, Review Period Ends: 08/11/2014, Contact: Chris 
Church 303-969-2276.
EIS No. 20140189, Draft EIS, USFS, CO, Middle Bald Mountain Area 
Communication Site, Comment Period Ends: 08/25/2014, Contact: Carol 
Kruse 970-295-6663.
EIS No. 20140190, Revised Draft EIS, USFS, 00, Greater Sage Grouse Bi-
State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment, Comment Period 
Ends: 10/09/2014, Contact: James Winfrey 775-355-5308.

    Dated: July 8, 2014.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2014-16245 Filed 7-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
----

EXHIBIT 31.2 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Michael K. Longinotti, Chief Financial Officer of Gryphon GoldCorporation, certify that: 

1.    I have reviewed thisreport on Form 10-QSB of Gryphon Gold Corporation; 
2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small businessissuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer andhave: 

(a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the small business issuer, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(c)   disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the small businessissuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the registration's fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

5.    The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of small businessissuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

(a)   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and 

(b)    any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer's internal controls over financialreporting. 
Date: November 14,    2006    By:           /s/ Michael K. Longinotti                    Michael K. Longinotti                  Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the annual report of Mirae Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Gi Hoon Joung, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of1934; and 

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

Date: June 30, 2006 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been providedto Mirae Corporation, and will be retained by Mirae Corporation and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

This certification will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification will notbe deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 or the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 even if the document with which it is submitted to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is soincorporated by reference.
No. 49775.

#### Protest 90829-K of Chong Sing Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The merchandise was classified and claimed dutiable at the same rates and under the same paragraphs as similar merchandise covered by the decision in *Quong Yuen Shing Co.*v. *United States*(31 C. C. P. A. 43, C. A. D. 247). In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of said cited case the ve-tsin found to contain salt, was excluded from paragraph 5 and protest sustained to this extent.
No. 56062.

protest 161570-K (Los Angeles).

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliveb, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
|                                                   |        |                                                |        |                           |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
| NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                                |   | FORMER NAME                                    |   | JURISDICTION OF FORMATION |
|                                              |   |                                           |   |                      |
| Whitestone REIT Operating Partnership III GP, LLC |   | Hartman REIT Operating Partnership III GP, LLC |   | Texas                     |
| Whitestone REIT Operating Partnership III LP      |   | Hartman REIT Operating Partnership III LP      |   | Texas                     |
| Whitestone REIT Operating Partnership III LP, LTD |   | Hartman REIT Operating Partnership III LP, LTD |   | Texas                     |
| Whitestone REIT Operating Partnership II GP, LLC  |   | Hartman REIT Operating Partnership II GP, LLC  |   | Delaware                  |
| Whitestone REIT Operating Partnership II LP       |   | Hartman REIT Operating Partnership II LP       |   | Texas                     |
| Whitestone REIT Operating Company IV, LLC         |   | HCP REIT Operating Company IV, LLC             |   | Texas                     |
| Whitestone Pima Norte LLC                         |   | n/a                                            |   | Texas                     |
| Whitestone CP West LLC                            |   | n/a                                            |   | Texas                     |
| Whitestone Offices LLC                            |   | n/a                                            |   | Texas                     |
| Whitestone Centers LLC                            |   | n/a                                            |   | Texas                     |
| Whitestone Industrial-Office LLC                  |   | n/a                                            |   | Texas                     |
| Whitestone Retail Services, L.L.C.                |   | n/a                                            |   | Delaware                  |
| Whitestone Brokerage Services, L.L.C.             |   | n/a                                            |   | Texas                     |
| Whitestone SunnySlope Village, L.L.C.             |   | n/a                                            |   | Delaware                  |
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 Homeland Security

###### Bureau of Customs and Border Protection 

          - [CBP Dec. 07-13] 

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. 

# ACTION:

Notice of re-approval of Amspec Services of Wilmington, North Carolina, as a commercial gauger and laboratory. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 151.13, Amspec Services, 2841 Carolina Beach Road, Suite 3B, Wilmington, North Carolina 28412, has been re-approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils, and to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 151.13. Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analysis or gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively,                               ( print page 14603)                            inquiries regarding the specific tests or gauger services this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to                         *http://www.cbp.gov/​xp/​cgov/​import/​operations_​support/​labs_​scientific_​ svcs/org_and_operations.xml*.                     

# DATES:

The re-approval of Amspec Services as a commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on May 26, 2005. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for May 2008. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eugene J. Bondoc, PhD, or Randall Breaux, Laboratories and Scientific Services, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, 202-344-1060. 

Dated: March 22, 2007. 

Ira S. Reese, 

Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services. 

 [FR Doc. E7-5707 Filed 3-27-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
EXHIBIT 10.9 

Description of Non-Employee Director Compensation 

Section 3.11 of the Company’s Amended and Restated Bylaws grant the Board of Directors authority to fix the compensation of directors.  Pursuant to this authority, the Company’s Board of Directors authorized the following compensation for non-employee directors by resolution adopted on June 5, 2013:


	
(1)
	
 Non-employee directors receive $60,000 per year ($15,000 per quarter) for service on the Board (the “Annual Retainer”);





	
(2)
	
The non-executive Chairman of the Board receives $50,000 per year for service in addition to the Annual Retainer;





	
(3)
	
The chairman of the Audit Committee receives $15,000 per year for service in addition to the Annual Retainer; and





	
(4)
	
Audit committee members receive $1,000 for each audit committee meeting attended.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Alexander, Appellant.

Submitted April 21, 1969.

Before Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eaoen, O’Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ.

*34
      *.Melvin Dildine,*Assistant Defender, and *Vincent J. Ziccardi,*Defender, for appellant.

*Leonard S. Goodman*and *James D. Crawford,*Assistant District Attorneys, *Richard A. Sprague,*First Assistant District Attorney, and *Arlen Specter,*District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

June 27, 1969:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Pomeroy,

In June 1954, having been charged with murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, aggravated assault and battery, and assault and battery with intent to kill, appellant Alexander pleaded guilty to murder generally and to all other charges. Appellant was found guilty of second degree murder, and his sentences on all indictments totaled 20 to 41 years. No appeal was taken from the judgment of sentence.

Appellant subsequently filed several Post Conviction Hearing Act petitions attacking the validity of his sentence; none of these petitions is now before us. In 1968 appellant filed a Post Conviction Hearing Act petition in which he argued that he was denied his right to a direct appeal from his conviction; in consequence he requested leave to file a direct appeal *nunc pro tunc.*After a hearing at which appellant was represented by counsel, the lower court denied the instant petition, and this appeal was taken.

Both grounds upon which appellant’s conviction following his guilty plea might be contested, namely, the validity of the plea and the lawfulness of the sentence, are claims which may be heard collaterally. See *Commonwealth v. Stokes,*426 Pa. 265, 232 A. 2d 193 (1967). Appellant argues, however, that collateral review is inadequate because oral argument is restricted on appeals from a collateral attack while oral argument is granted as of right in direct appeals. Appel*35lant explicitly requests us to reconsider our decision in *Commonwealth v. Walters,*431 Pa. 74, 244 A. 2d 757 (1968), holding that appellate review of a post-conviction hearing is a satisfactory substitute for the review afforded by direct appeals to this Court, even though no absolute right to oral argument exists in appeals from collateral proceedings. Appellant has advanced no new reason why we should repudiate the *Walters*case, nor do we see any reason to do so. We fail to see how the submission of a case on briefs alone, provided the appellant has the aid of counsel in the preparation of such briefs, deprives appellant of the right of appeal guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Finally, while we have no desire to discourage persons from pressing any legitimate claims they may have, we note that the present appeal, filed as it was only seven months after the *Walters*decision was handed down, without a dissenting vote, would have us effectively ignore the doctrine of *stare decisis.*Although members of the Court have differed from time to time as to the application of the doctrine, none of us would outlaw it.

Order affirmed.
No. 59103.

protest 39433-K (New York).

#### Kung Chen Fur Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the items marked *“A”*consist of kidskin plates the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Rung Chen Fur Corpn.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 266, C. D. 1480) and that the items marked “B” consist of lambskin plates similar to those the subject of *A. S. Gold & Bro., Inc.*v. *United Stales*(33 Cust. Ct. 120, C. D. 1643). Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact and following the cited decisions, the claim for free entry under paragraph 1681 was sustained.

Ford, J., concurred.

Mollison, J.,

dissented for the reasons set forth in his dissenting opinions in C. D. 1480 and C. D. 1643, *supra.*
#### Joseph Nunn, Jr., *Appellant, v.*George Retzenthaler and others, *Respondents.*

— Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered in Monroe County Court, costs to abide event. Opinion by Hardin, J.
## Table 1. 

## OPP Restricted Use Pesticides 

## Included and 

## Not 

## Included



## on the ECPRA List of 

## Extremely Hazardous 

## Substances.

Restricted 

### Use Pesticides

Acrolein Acrylonitile Aldicarb Ally1 Alcohol Aluminum 

### Phosphide Arsenic 

### Pentoxide

A

### vitrol Azinphos-metbyl Carbofwan Chlorfenvinphos mordane Chlorophacinone Cournaphos Cycloheximide Demeton Dicrotophos Dioxathion Diphacinone Disulfoton Endrin 

### EPN Ethion Ethoprop Fenamiphos Fenitrothion Fensulfothion nuroacetamide 

### on 

### EPCRA 302 

### List

Fonofos 

### Hydrozyanic Acid Lindane Meihidathion Methimarb Methomyl Metbyl Bromide Methyl Isothiocyanate Mevinphos Monocrotophos Nicotine Oxarnyl Paraquat Parathion 

### Parathion-methy 1 Pentachiorophenol Phorate 

### Phosacetim Pbosphamidon 

### Sodium cyanide Sodium fiuroacetate Strychnine Sulfotepp Sulfuric Acid TEPP Terbufos Toxaphene 

### Restricted 

### Use Pesticides

Acetarnide Acetic Acid

Acetochlor 

### A

### lachlor Alpha-Chlorohydrin 

### Arnitraz Amitrole 

### Arsenic Acid Akazine Avermectin Bendiocarb 

### Benzoic Acid Bis(tributy1tin) oxide Biphenthrin Brodifacoum Butylate Cadium 

### Chloride Calcium Cyanide 

### CarbonDioxide 

### Carbon Tetrachlmide Chlordane,technical Chlordimeform Chlombenzilate Chloropicrin Chlorotbalonil Chlorothoxyfos Chlorpyrifos Chromic Acid Clofentezine Coal Tar Coal Tar Creosote Copper Oxychloride bsote Creosote Oil Cupric Oxide Cuprous Oxide C



### yanazine Cyfluthrin C

yhalothrin Cypermethrin



### DBCP Deltamethrin Diailate Diazinon Dichloenil Dichloropmpene Diclofop-methyl Diflubenzuron Dodemorph Bmevinphos 

### EPTC Ethylene Dibromide Ethylene Dichloride Fenbutatin-oxide 

### Fenpropathrin 

### Not 

### on 

## EPCRA 302 List

Fenthion Fenvalerate Fipmd Flucythrinate Fludinate 

### HydrogenCyanamide Imazaquia Isamfos Isofenphos Lam&-cyhalothrin Magnesium Phosphide Methamidophos Metolachlor Niclosamide Nimgen, liquid Oxydemton-methyl Pentachlorophenol, durn Permewin Phosalone Phostebupiram Picloram Picloram, isoctyl ester Picloram, 

### potassium salt Picloram, triisopropanolmi Piperonyl butoxide Potassium pentachlorophenate Profenophos Pronamide Propanoic acid Fropetamphos Pyrethrins 

### Res Wn 

### Rotenone S-

fenvalerate Simazjne 

### Wum arsenate Sodium dichromate 

### Sodiumhydroxide Sodium methyldithiocarbamatc 

### Sodium pyroarmte Starlicide Sulfuryl Fluoride Sulprofos Tefluthrin TergitoI 

### TFM Tralomethrin Tributyltin flouride Tribuiyltin methacrylate Trifluralin Triisopropranolamine Triphenyltin hydroxide Zinc pllosphide Z-rnevinphos
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

GEORGE DENTON MARTIN,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 47 MM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 3rd day of May

, 2018, the Application for Bail is DENIED.