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

###### Federal Communications Commission

          - [Report No. 2812] 

      ( print page 19705)    
A Petition for Reconsideration has been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). Oppositions to this petition must be filed by May 4, 2007. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired. 

*Subject:*                     In the Matter of Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems (CC Docket 94-102).                 

In the Matter of Request for Limited Waiver of Washington RSA No. 8 Limited Partnership. 

*Number of Petitions Filed:*                     1.                 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary.

[FR Doc. E7-7450  Filed 4-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### William Hall, *Complain’t, versus*Nathan Decker *& al.*

Exceptions to the report of referees are not sustainable, if objections,' in writing, are not filed as required by the 21st Rule of Court.

Where an action is referred by rule of court, without any condition or limitation, the authority of the Court is transferred to the referees, and they are made the judges of the law and the fact; and, if there is no suggestion of improper motives, on their part, their doings will not be inquired into by the Court.

Exceptions from the ruling of Walton, J., in overruling the respondents’ objections to the acceptance of the report of the referees and directing the same to be accepted.

This was a complaint under the statute for flowage of land, and was referred by rule of Court. The referees reported that this complaint was barred by a judgment of a former Court, obtained by the complainant against the respondents.

*Holden &*Peabody, for the complainant.

*J. J.*Perry, for the respondents.

The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Daneorth, J.,

By the 21st Rule of this Court, all objections to any report, offered to the Court for acceptance, shall be made in writing, and filed with the clerk, and no others will be considered. In the case at bar, no such objections appear to have been made, and, by the authority of *Mayberry*v. *Morse,*43 Maine, 176, there is no ground for exceptions. '

Neither is it perceived that there is any cause for excep*32tions if the objections had been properly set out in writing. It is claimed in plaintiff’s argument that the referees exceeded their jurisdiction. By the rule of Court, the complaint appears to have been referred without any conditions or limitations. This transferred all the authority of the Court to the referees, — and, if they found any valid defence to the complaint, they not only had' the right but it was their duty to say so. In their report they have said so. As they were the judges of the law as well as the fact, the Court cannot inquire into their doings, no suggestion having been made that they were actuated by any improper motives.

*Exceptions overruled.*

Appleton, C. J., Davis, Kent, Walton and Dickerson, JJ., concurred.
A99A0473.

#### HILLERY v. THE STATE.

(513 SE2d 527)

Andrews, Judge.

After being indicted and tried for rape, Nicholas D. Hillery was found guilty by a jury of aggravated assault with intent to rape.

1. Hillery claims that all the evidence showed either the completed offense of rape or no offense, and therefore the trial court erred by charging the jury that it was authorized to consider whether he was guilty of the lesser included offense of aggravated assault with intent to rape.

“An indictment for rape necessarily includes the lesser offenses of assault with intent to rape and assault and battery.” *Andrews v. State,*196 Ga. 84, 112 (26 SE2d 263) (1943). “[However,] [w]here all of the evidence shows either the completed offense of rape as charged, or no offense, such evidence will not support a verdict for one of the lesser grades of the offense, and the court should not *820charge on the lesser grades of the offense.” *Sims v. State,*203 Ga. 668, 670-671 (47 SE2d 862) (1948).

Decided March 8, 1999.

*Craig S. Mathis,*for appellant.

*Kenneth B. Hodges III, District Attorney, Gregory W. Edwards, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

There was no error in the present case because the evidence authorized the charge. The victim testified that she was “kind of pushing and fighting” with Hillery as he tried to kiss her against her will, although she said “it wasn’t anything rough or nothing.” She said that she fell back onto the couch, that Hillery forcefully pulled down her pants against her will as she was trying to keep him off of her, and then he raped her. Although Hillery did not testify at the trial, a statement he gave to the police was admitted into evidence. In the statement, Hillery denied raping or having sex with the victim, but he admitted that he tried to kiss the victim but she would not let him. He further stated that they were just “playing” and explained “playing” to mean that “we wrestle and stuff like that[,] maybe wrestle or something like that... we fussed.”

Hillery’s statement in conjunction with the testimony of the victim provided evidence that Hillery assaulted the victim with intent to rape. *Sims,*203 Ga. at 670-671; *Terry v. State,*166 Ga. App. 632 (305 SE2d 170) (1983). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in charging the jury as to the lesser included offense of assault with intent to rape.

2. The evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude that Hillery was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of aggravated assault with intent to rape. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur.*
# C_2008285EN.01000101.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/1

---

(2008/C 285/01)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 272, 25.10.2008

OJ C 272, 25.10.2008

Past publications

OJ C 260, 11.10.2008

OJ C 247, 27.9.2008

OJ C 236, 13.9.2008

OJ C 223, 30.8.2008

OJ C 209, 15.8.2008

OJ C 197, 2.8.2008

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50428

Conference Calendar

 

BENNY EUGENE TRIMBLE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ANTHONY FITZWATER, CO III;

ALLEN KEEFE, Sergeant;

JACK/JACKIE EDWARDS,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-96-CV-337

- - - - - - - - - -

February 11, 1998

Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Benny Eugene Trimble, Texas prisoner #382326, has filed an

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on

appeal, following the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief
No. 97-50428

-2-

could be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). By moving for

IFP, Trimble is challenging the district court’s certification

that IFP status should not be granted on appeal because his

appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d

197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Trimble does not contest the district court’s determination

that he had not alleged any facts tending to show that prison

officials were deliberately indifferent to his safety. Rather,

he challenges the court’s denial of his post-judgment motion

seeking leave to file a second amended complaint. However,

Trimble does not show that the district court abused its

discretion in denying his post-judgment motion for leave to

amend. See Briddle v. Scott, 63 F.3d 364, 379-81 (5th Cir.

1995). Accordingly, we uphold the district court’s order

certifying that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Trimble’s

request for IFP status is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as

meritless. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

IFP DENIED. APPEAL DISMISSED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6193
LLOYD GEORGE MAXWELL, SR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CR-93-262-A) Submitted: March 20, 2003 Decided: March 31, 2003 Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lloyd George Maxwell, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Lloyd George Maxwell, Sr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for modification and reduction of his sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Maxwell v. United States , No. CR-93-262-A (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10.4


 


PROMISSORY
NOTE


 


	
  $25,000,000.00

  	
  Houston, Texas

  	
  August 5, 2008

  



 


FOR VALUE RECEIVED and WITHOUT GRACE, the undersigned (“Makers”)
jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of TEXAS CAPITAL BANK, N.A. (“Payee”),
at its banking quarters in Houston, Harris County, Texas, the sum of TWENTY
FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($25,000,000.00), or so much thereof as may be advanced
against this Note pursuant to the Second Amended and Restated Credit Agreement
dated of even date herewith by and between Makers and Payee (as amended,
restated or supplemented from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”),
together with interest at the rates and calculated as provided in the Credit
Agreement.


 


Reference is hereby made to the Credit Agreement for matters governed
thereby, including, without limitation, the availability of Makers to receive
advances under this Note and certain events which will entitle the holder
hereof to accelerate the maturity of all amounts due hereunder. Capitalized
terms used but not defined in this Note shall have the meanings assigned to
such terms in the Credit Agreement.


 


This Note is issued pursuant to and is payable as provided in the
Credit Agreement. Subject to compliance with applicable provisions of the
Credit Agreement, Makers may at any time pay the full amount or any part of
this Note without the payment of any premium or fee, but such payment shall
not, until this Note is fully paid and satisfied, excuse the payment as it
becomes due of any payment on this Note provided for in the Credit Agreement.


 


Without being limited thereto or thereby, this Note is secured by the
Security Instruments.


 


THIS NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED AND
CONTROLLED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO
PRINCIPLES THEREOF RELATING TO CONFLICTS OF LAW; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT
CHAPTER 345 OF THE TEXAS FINANCE CODE (WHICH REGULATES CERTAIN REVOLVING CREDIT
LOAN ACCOUNTS AND REVOLVING TRIPARTY ACCOUNTS) SHALL NOT APPLY TO THIS NOTE.


 


[Signatures on the following page]


 


Signature Page to Promissory
Note


 

















 


	
   

  	
   

  	
  MAKERS:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  CYMRI, L.L.C. (F/K/A THE CYMRI

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  CORPORATION)

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Larry M.
  Wright

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Larry M. Wright

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Chief Executive
  Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  TRIUMPH
  ENERGY, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Larry M.
  Wright

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Larry M. Wright

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Chief Executive
  Officer
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 77 (Monday, April 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 20113]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-7662]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2230-034-AK]


City and Borough of Sitka, AK; Notice of Availability of 
Environmental Assessment

April 17, 2007.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's regulations, 18 CFR part 
380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has 
reviewed the application for a new license for the Blue Lake 
Hydroelectric Project, located on Sawmill Creek, near the City of 
Sitka, Alaska, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). In 
the EA, Commission staff analyze potential environmental effects of 
relicensing the project and conclude that issuing a new license for the 
project, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute 
a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment.
    A copy of the EA is on file with the Commission and is available 
for public inspection. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's 
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the 
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number 
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online 
Support at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5e3e0f7e6eacbc9cccbc0f6d0d5d5cad7d1e5c3c0d7c68bc2cad3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="460003140509282a2f282315333636293432062023342568212930">[email protected]</span></a> or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, 
or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the issuance date 
of this notice, and should be addressed to the Secretary, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1-A, 
Washington, DC 20426. Please affix ``Blue Lake Project No. 2230-034'' 
to all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via Internet in 
lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. 
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's 
Web site under the ``eFiling'' link. For further information, contact 
Tom Dean at (202) 502-6041.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7662 Filed 4-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Before the Second Division,

January 9, 1941

No. 45142.

#### Protest 23532-K of Bullocks, Inc. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Counsel for the respective parties agreed that the merchandise. consists of woven mufflers similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 44055. They were found to be woven mufflers in chief value of silk, hemmed or hemstitched, and held dutiable at 60 percent under paragraph 1209 as claimed.
Exhibit (31)-1
**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**
I, J. Douglas Whisenant, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TranscontinentalGas Pipe Line Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)), for theregistrant and have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the report that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
Date: August 5, 2004     By: /s/ J. Douglas Whisenant      J. Douglas Whisenant   Senior Vice President   (Principal Executive Officer)
DENY; and Opinion Filed December 11 , 2017 . 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 17 - 01361 - CV No. 05 - 17 - 01362 - CV IN RE SENRICK WILKER SON , Relator Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F10 - 01183 and F10 - 01184 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang

- Miers, Myers, and Boatright Opinion by Justice Boatright Before the Court is relator Senrick Wilke rson’s November 27, 2017 notice of appeal in which he challenges the alleged failure of the trial cou rt to rule on certain motions. We construe this notice as a petition for writ of mandamus seeking a writ ordering the trial court to rule on the motions. To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that the trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. Weeks , 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (o rig. proceedi ng). Further, as the party seeking relief, the relator has the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to mandamus relief. In re Gonzales , No. 14

- 16

- 01024

- C R , 2017 WL 124343, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dis t.] Jan. 12 , 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (stating this proposition in a civil case)
.– 2

– The mandamus record must include a certified or sworn copy of the trial court’s dock et sheet or other proof that establishes relator filed the motions, requested the trial court to rule on the motions, and the trial court refused to rule or failed to rule within a reasonable time. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(k)(1)(a ), 52.7(a). The mandamus record does not include that proof. The mandamus record must also show that relator alerted the trial court of his motion by setting it for submission or hearing, In re Harris , No. 14

- 07

- 00231

- CV, 2007 WL 1412105, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] May 15, 2007, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.), but the record here does not. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

171361F.P05 /Jason Boatright/ JASON BOATRIGHT JUSTICE
# C_2018413EN.01000301.xml

| 14.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 413/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 413/3

---

EURATOM SUPPLY AGENCY

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2017

(2018/C 413/08)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

http://ec.europa.eu/euratom/accounts.html

---