alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

September 27, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

131110 Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly DANIEL B. RINK, CATHERINE RINK, Maura D. Corrigan CATHERINE RINK REVO CABLE TRUST, Robert P. Young, Jr. RICHARD L. BISHOP, MARCIA A. BISHOP, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices CARL BLAUWKAMP, CA RRIE BLAUWKAMP, LAVERNE BRUMMEL, MARCIA BRUMMEL, ANTHONY CASTILLO, VIRGINIA CASTILLO, RANDALL DEWILDE, LI SA A. DEWILDE, PATRICK J. DIETRICH, CHERYL A. DIETRICH, ROBERT L. FERGUSON, BA RBARA A. FERGUSON, ELIZABETH L. KRIMENDAHL, ROJELIO MARTINEZ, ANGELA MARTINEZ, DAVID NORTHROP, SHERYL NORTHROP, JOHN RUGGIERO, NANDA RUGGI ERO, BARBARA L. SCAFFEDE, BARBARA L. SCAFFEDE DECLARATION OF TRUST, DALE TERPSTRA, MARY TERPSTRA, PHILLIP H. TUCKER, BARBARA A. TUCKER, DEANNA VAN DYKE, FRANCISCO W. YARDE, AMY M. YARDE, STEVEN E. VANDER VEEN, EILEEN E. VANDER VEEN, KRISTI NE E. KORTMAN, MARK KORTMAN, JOYCE E. KORTMAN,

JOYCE E. KORTMAN TR UST, THOMAS C. SLANEC and COREEN D. SLANEC, and
FOREST BEACH EASEMENT HOLDERS, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v SC: 131110 COA: 265517 Allegan CC: 04-036238-CZ RICHARD S. RATCLIFF and PATRICIA C. RATCLIFF, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the March 23, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented shou ld be reviewed by this Court.

s0920 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 27, 2006

Clerk
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00135-CR

__________________

JAYLAN ROCHARD WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F12-13932

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court sentenced Jaylan Rochard Williams on March 24, 2014. On 

May 2, 2023, Williams filed a notice of appeal. We notified the parties that the notice 

of appeal was filed outside the time for which an extension of time may be granted 

for filing a notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a), 26.3. In a response to the 

Court’s notice, Appellant’s appointed appellate counsel noted that Williams’s 

conviction in this case had been affirmed in an earlier appeal and the notice of appeal 
2

that Williams filed on May 2, 2023, had been filed too late to perfect an appeal.1 We 

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on June 13, 2023

Opinion Delivered June 14, 2023

Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ.

1 See generally Williams v. State, No. 09-14-00194-CR, 2016 WL 5417449, 

at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Sept. 28, 2016, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated 

for publication).
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:**Doingnaval history : essays toward improvement
 
epub|mobi| pdf|
 
SuDoc Number:D 208.210:13
Item Number:0408-A-02 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001090926
January 28, 2019
No. 62101.

#### Armour and Company *v.*United States,

protests 287302-K, 287303-K, and 287323-K (Philadelphia).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of meats, prepared or preserved, not specially provided for, similar in all material respects to the meat the subject of *United States*v. *Mercantil Distribuidora, S. A., et al.*(45 C. C. P. A. 20, C. A. D. 667), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 62105.

#### Dux Co. *v.*United States,

protest 292052-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “A” consist of chairs similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Davies Turner & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C. C. P. A. 39, C. A. D. 669), the claim at 20 percent under the provision in paragraph 412, as modified by T. D. 51802, for “Furniture, * * * Chairs,” was sustained. The items marked “T,” stipulated to consist of furniture the same as that in C. A. D. 669, *supra,*were held dutiable at 12)4 percent under the provision in said paragraph 412, as modified, *supra,*for other furniture.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 10, 2015

No. 04-15-00146-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.W.B.-L.ET AL,

From the 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010-PA-02179

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

In this accelerated appeal of the February 23, 2015 order terminating Appellant’s parental 

rights, on May 22, 2015, this court granted Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the 

brief until June 8, 2015. We warned Appellant we would not grant any further extensions absent 

extenuating circumstances.

On June 8, 2015, Appellant’s counsel notified this court of a death in his family and 

moved this court for an extension of time to file the brief until June 16, 2015, a due date ninetyeight days after the notice of appeal was filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a); see also TEX. R. JUD.

ADMIN. 6.2, available at http://www.txcourts.gov/media/698396/rja_20140901.pdf (directing 

courts of appeals to dispose of SAPCR suits “[w]ithin 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is 

filed”). 

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief must be filed with this court not 

later than June 16, 2015. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO FILE 

APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE GRANTED. 

If Appellant fails to file the brief as ordered, we will abate this appeal and remand the 

cause to the trial court for an abandonment hearing. See, e.g., TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b); see also

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 107.013 (West 2014) (requiring the trial court to appoint counsel to 

represent an indigent parent in a parental termination case); In re K.S.M., 61 S.W.3d 632, 633 

(Tex. App.—Tyler 2001, no pet.) (“Like indigent criminal appellants, indigent appellants 

challenging an order terminating their parental rights enjoy a right to counsel on appeal.”); cf.

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b); Samaniego v. State, 952 S.W.2d 50, 52–53 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 

1997, no pet.).
_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of June, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ray Dale SPEER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-11103.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided Sept. 19, 2005.

Charles William Brown, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

*626Christopher Allen Curtis, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Ray Dale Speer appeals his conviction and sentence following his conditional guilty plea to the offense of being a felon in possession of a firearm on the grounds that: (1) the sentencing enhancements violate the Sixth Amendment rule announced in *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); and (2) the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress incriminating statements because he made the statements when he was in custody and prior to being advised of his rights as required by *Miranda v. Arizona,*384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We affirm for the following reasons:

> 1. Speer does not argue that the waiver was unknowing or involuntary. He is held to his agreement. *See United States v. Portillo,*18 F.3d 290, 292-93 (5th Cir.1994).

> 2. Because the term “statutory maximum” in an appeal waiver refers to the maximum allowed by statute, not the guideline maximum authorized by a guilty plea or verdict, and because Spear was sentenced below the maximum allowed by statute, Speer waived his right to appeal his sentence. *United States v. Bond,*414 F.3d 542, 545-46 (5th Cir.2005). There is no indication in the record that the parties intended the term “statutory maximum” to be accorded the non-natural definition it assumed in *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), and *Booker. Id.*

> 3. In the appeal waiver, Speer specifically reserved the right to challenge the district court’s ruling on his motion to suppress. Speer’s statements were properly admitted because they were voluntary and not the result of a custodial “interrogation.” *Miranda,*384 U.S. at 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602; *United States v. Gonzales,*121 F.3d 928, 940 & n. 7 (5th Cir.1997). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress. *United States v. Castro,*166 F.3d 728, 731 (5th Cir.1999) (en banc).

Affirmed.

*

 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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                      MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                              1,010,576
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       3,207,211
<ALLOWANCES>                                          348,000
<INVENTORY>                                                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    5,202,554
<PP&E>                                             28,027,729
<DEPRECIATION>                                     12,313,920
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     32,268,094
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               4,307,435
<BONDS>                                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                            2,128,655
<OTHER-SE>                                         14,076,734
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       32,268,094
<SALES>                                             6,120,711
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    6,120,711
<CGS>                                               4,272,565
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       4,272,565
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    198,321
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       532,975
<INCOME-TAX>                                          233,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   299,975
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                          299,975
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0.01
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24339-24340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8298]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS); Subcommittee 
Meeting on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Notice of Meeting

    The ACRS Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena will hold a 
meeting on May 15-16, 2007, Commissioners' Conference Room O-1G16, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
    The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
    The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
    Tuesday, May 15, 2007--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business.
    Wednesday, May 16, 2007--8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of 
business.

[[Page 24340]]

    The Subcommittee will hear from the NRR staff and the Nuclear 
Energy Institute regarding the progress in resolving GSI-191, ``PWR 
Sump Performance.'' The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze 
relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and 
actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
    Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Ms. 
Zena Abdullahi (Telephone: 301-415-2808) five days prior to the 
meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. 
Electronic recordings will be permitted.
    Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 
p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact 
the above named individual at least two working days prior to the 
meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.

    Dated: April 25, 2007.
Cayetano Santos,
Branch Chief, ACRS.
 [FR Doc. E7-8298 Filed 5-1-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
# C_2016068EN.01002002.xml

| 22.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/20

---

Action brought on 10 July 2015 — European Commission v Republic of Slovenia

(Case C-357/15)

(2016/C 068/26)

Language of the case: Slovene

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Sanfrutos Cano, M. Heller, D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

By order of 29 October 2015, the President of the Court decided:

| — | Case C–357/15 is removed from the Register of the Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

Case C–357/15 is removed from the Register of the Court.

| — | The Republic of Slovenia is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Republic of Slovenia is ordered to pay the costs.

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8828]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-61,104]


Bay State Circuits, Inc.; Millbury, MA; Notice of Termination of 
Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on March 13, 2007, in response to a worker 
petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of Bay State 
Circuits, Inc., Millbury, Massachusetts.
    The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. 
Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 1st day of May 2007.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-8828 Filed 5-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
March 10, 1971

No. 71-13

#### Gerald D. McLemore, PVT, U. S. Army v United States.

ORDERED:

That said “Motions” be, and the same hereby are, dismissed.
# C_2015294EN.01008501.xml

| 7.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/85

---

Action brought on 1 July 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-97/15)

(2015/C 294/104)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the final decision to transfer the pension rights of the applicant into the European Union pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions (GIPs) of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations to be unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 9 of the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations to be unlawful;

| — | Annul the decision of 14 October 2014 confirming the transfer of the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service in accordance with the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of 14 October 2014 confirming the transfer of the pension rights acquired by the applicant before his entry into service in accordance with the general implementing provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

| — | Order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
H. Con. Res. 395 Agreed to July 26, 2008

One Hundred Tenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and eight 

Concurrent Resolution 

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZING PRINTING OF ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF 

COPIES OF POCKET VERSION OF THE UNITED STATES 

CONSTITUTION. 

Under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing, there 

shall be printed an additional number of copies of the 23rd edition 

of the pocket version of the United States Constitution (House 

Document 110—51) equal to the lesser of— 

(1) 550,000 copies, of which 440,000 copies shall be for 

the use of the House of Representatives, 100,000 copies shall 

be for the use of the Senate, and 10,000 copies shall be for 

the use of the Joint Committee on Printing; or 

(2) such number of copies as does not exceed a total production and printing cost of $180,949, with distribution to be 

allocated in the same proportion as described in paragraph 

(1), except that in no case shall the number of copies be less 

than 1 per Member of Congress. 

Attest: 

Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Attest: 

Secretary of the Senate.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 236 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                         July 11, 2008.
    Resolved, That the resolution from the House of Representatives (H. 
Con. Res. 236) entitled ``Concurrent resolution recognizing the close 
relationship between the United States and the Republic of San 
Marino.'', do pass with the following

                               AMENDMENT:

In the tenth whereas clause of the preamble, strike out [earlier this year] and 
insert: in 2007

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 236

_______________________________________________________________________

                               AMENDMENT
```
SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT OF


TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION





I, Cindy Wang, certify that:





(a) A review of Toyota Motor Credit Corporation’s activities
      and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of May 11, 2016 (the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”), among Toyota Auto Finance Receivables LLC, as seller, Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, as servicer (in such capacity, the
      “Servicer”) and sponsor, and Toyota Auto Receivables 2016-B Owner Trust, as issuer, during the year ended December 31, 2018 has been made under my supervision.





(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the
      Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.





March 21, 2019





By:  /s/ Cindy Wang


Cindy Wang


Group Vice President - Treasury


Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, as Servicer of Toyota Auto Receivables 2016-B Owner Trust
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 308 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.308
                                                   Agreed to May 7, 2008

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and eight

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR NATIONAL PEACE OFFICERS' MEMORIAL 
              SERVICE.

    (a) In General.--The Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police 
and its auxiliary (in this resolution referred to as the ``sponsor'') 
shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, the 27th annual National 
Peace Officers' Memorial Service (in this resolution referred to as the 
``event''), on the Capitol Grounds, in order to honor the law 
enforcement officers who died in the line of duty during 2007.
    (b) Date of Event.--The event shall be held on May 15, 2008, or on 
such other date as the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the 
Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate jointly designate.

SEC. 2. TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

    (a) In General.--Under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect 
of the Capitol and the Capitol Police Board, the event shall be--
        (1) free of admission charge and open to the public; and
        (2) arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress.
    (b) Expenses and Liabilities.--The sponsor shall assume full 
responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident to all 
activities associated with the event.

SEC. 3. EVENT PREPARATIONS.

    Subject to the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, the 
sponsor is authorized to erect upon the Capitol Grounds such stage, 
sound amplification devices, and other related structures and 
equipment, as may be required for the event.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 
Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on 
the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the 
Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```