alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 8, 2022

No. 04-22-00486-CR

EX PARTE Elvin Maudiel Lopez DUBON

From the County Court, Kinney County, Texas

Trial Court No. 10371CR

Honorable Dennis Powell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On December 2, 2022, the State filed an unopposed motion to consolidate, seeking 

consolidation of this case with seventeen others and for an extension of time to file its brief. We 

DENY the motion as to consolidation, but we GRANT the motion as to the extension of time and 

ORDER the State to file its brief by January 6, 2023. The State may file the same brief in 

multiple cases, if it so desires, by placing all appellate cause numbers in the style and by filing 

the brief separately in all cause numbers. Further requests for extensions of time will be 

disfavored.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

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

court on this 8th day of December, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
#### WETTRE et al. v. HAGUE et al.

Civ. A. No. 7076.

United States District Court D. Massachusetts.

Jan. 4, 1949.

See also, D.C., 74 F.Supp. 396; 1 Cir., 168 F.2d 825.

Joseph F. Dolan, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiffs.

H. G. Morison, Asst. Atty. Gen., of Washington, D. C., for defendants.

WYZANSKI, District Judge.

This is a suit by four veteran employees of the Boston Naval Shipyard seeking to restrain the Commandant and others from reducing three of them (Champoux, Quatromoni and Joy) in rank, grade and salary and from putting one of them (Atkinson) on a non-pay status as of February 6, 1948 and separating him from the service as of December 7, 1948. Each plaintiff seeks to have the Commandant’s orders affecting him set aside as being in violation of § 4 of the Act of August 23. 1912, 37 Stat. 413, 5 U.S.C.A. § 648 and § 12 of the Veterans’ Preference Act, 58 Stat. 390, 5 U.S.C.A. § 861. None of the plaintiffs in the complaint nor in his affidavit nor in any document filed in response to this Court’s order of December 17, 1948 has disclosed at what rate he was being paid before the Commandant took his action or, except in the case of Atkinson, at what rate he has been paid since that time by the Navy or, in the case of Atkinson, by any other employer.

Defendants moved to dismiss on the ground, among others, that “plaintiffs have not alleged that as to each of them the amount in controversy equals- or exceeds $3,000.” After that motion this Court by its order of December 17, 1948 gave plaintiffs an opportunity to file affidavits showing that such amount was in controversy. Plaintiffs filed no affidavits.

There is no statute which gives this Court jurisdiction to hear this controversy if there is no showing that there is involved as to each plaintiff $3,000 exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331. Insular Police Commission v. Lopez, 1 Cir., 160 F.2d 673, 677. Hence the order of this Court must be

Complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
(Reap. Dec. 9408)

#### Kurt Orban Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 3580-H, etc.

(Decided April 29, 1959)

*Shwrretts, Paley & Garter*for the plaintiff.

*George Goehran DouTj,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, relate to certain steel flanges exported from Germany and entered at the port of Houston, Tex.

Stipulated facts, upon which these appeals are before me, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the steel flanges in question is export value, as defined in section 402(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value for the invoice items marked “A” and checked “WAB” is the appraised unit values, less 10 per centum, less *7y2*Per centum, less inland charges, and for the invoice items marked “B” and checked “WAB” is the appraised unit values, less 10 per centum, less inland charges, and I so hold. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 408 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 408

       Recognizing North Platte, Nebraska, as ``Rail Town USA''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2008

 Mr. Smith of Nebraska (for himself, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Moran of Kansas, 
 Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Pickering, Mr. McCarthy of California, Mr. Roskam, 
 Mr. Melancon, Mr. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Ross, Mr. Marchant, 
  Mr. Shuster, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Neugebauer, Ms. Granger, Mr. 
    Thornberry, Mr. Mica, Mr. Fortenberry, Mr. Terry, Mrs. McMorris 
 Rodgers, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Walz of Minnesota, Ms. Fallin, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. 
   Knollenberg, Mr. Baird, Mr. Walden of Oregon, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. 
     McHenry, and Mr. Sessions) submitted the following concurrent 
 resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
       Recognizing North Platte, Nebraska, as ``Rail Town USA''.

Whereas the community of North Platte, Nebraska, in western Nebraska is located 
        at the convergence of the North and South Platte Rivers and possesses a 
        rich and vibrant history;
Whereas the railroad has played a significant role in the history of the 
        community;
Whereas, on January 2, 1867, main line operations officially commenced in North 
        Platte, Nebraska;
Whereas trains were vital during our country's war efforts, transporting troops, 
        equipment, and supplies across the country;
Whereas during World War II hundreds of citizens from North Platte, Nebraska, 
        assembled at the local depot to greet troops passing through town by 
        train and provide soldiers with food, coffee, and gifts;
Whereas for 54 months between 1941 and 1946, millions of troops found a small 
        bit of comfort when their trains stopped in North Platte, Nebraska;
Whereas at the war's peak 3,000 to 5,000 personnel were greeted daily, with 
        North Platte, Nebraska, sometimes hosting up to 20 trains a day;
Whereas Bailey Yard in North Platte, Nebraska, is the largest railroad 
        classification yard in the world;
Whereas Bailey Yard covers 2,850 acres, reaching a total length of 8 miles, and 
        contains 315 miles of track;
Whereas every 24 hours, Bailey Yard handles 10,000 railroad cars; and
Whereas Mid-Plains Community College in North Platte, Nebraska, offers railroad-
        specific courses in order to enhance student preparation for possible 
        employment in the railroad discipline: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress recognizes North Platte, Nebraska, as ``Rail Town USA''.
                                 <all>
```
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 Energy

###### Office of International Regimes and Agreements 

# AGENCY:

Department of Energy. 

# ACTION:

Notice of Proposed Subsequent Arrangement. 

# SUMMARY:

This notice is being issued under the authority of Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The Department is providing notice of a proposed “subsequent arrangement” under the Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM). 

                        This subsequent arrangement concerns a request for a one-year extension (April 2007 to April 2008) of the current one-year programmatic approval for retransfer of U.S.-obligated irradiated fuel rods between Studsvik Nuclear AB, Sweden and the Institutt for Energiteknikk, Norway. The rods are being transferred for irradiation service, tests and examination, and returned to Sweden for further tests and disposal. The amounts are the same as under the current approval—a maximum of 30,000 grams uranium, 400 grams U-235 and 400 grams plutonium in all shipments combined, with a maximum of 100 grams of plutonium per shipment. The original programmatic consent, published in the                         **Federal Register**                         June 13, 2006, is set to expire in March 2007. Additional transactions are scheduled to occur between April 2007 and April 2008 and will be subject to U.S.-Euratom Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.                     

In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement will not be inimical to the common defense and security. 

This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than 15 days after the date of publication of this notice. 

Dated: January 12, 2007. 

For the Department of Energy. 

Richard Goorevich, 

Director, Office of International Regimes and Agreements.

 [FR Doc. E7-914 Filed 1-22-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[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:****Characteristics of H-1Bspecialty occupation workers: fiscal year ... annual report...**
 
2009
2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015| 2016 | 2017
 
SuDoc Number:HS 8.25:
Item Number:0520-G-15 (online)
CGP systemNumber:001085364
 
November 13, 2018
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 [DA 07-1706]
 AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This document announces that the 2006 revenue threshold between Class A carriers and Class B carriers is increased to $134 million. The 2005 revenue threshold between larger Class A carriers and mid-sized carriers is increased to $7.950 billion.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raj Kannan, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau at (202) 418-1565.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's public notice released April 12, 2007. This notice announces the inflation-adjusted 2006 revenue thresholds used for classifying carrier categories for various accounting and reporting purposes: (1) distinguishing Class A carriers from Class B carriers; and (2) distinguishing larger Class A carriers from mid-sized carriers. The revenue threshold between Class A carriers and Class B carriers is increased to $134 million. The revenue threshold between larger Class A carriers and mid-sized carriers is increased to $7.950 billion. The revenue thresholds for 2006 were determined as follows: Class A to Class B threshold
Larger Class A to midsize 
                             threshold(1) GDP-CPI Base
86.68
102.40(2) 2006 GDP-CPI
116.29
116.29(3) Inflation Factor (line 2 ÷ 1)
1.3416
1.1356(4) Original Revenue Threshold
$100 million
$7 billion(5) 2006 Revenue Threshold (line 3 * 4)
$134 million
$7.950 billion
 Federal Communications Commission. Albert Lewis, Chief, Pricing Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.


[FR Doc. E7-9305 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
No. 50739.

#### Protests 48550-K, etc., of Kageyama *&*Co., Inc., et al. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of dried, unsalted fish the same in all material respects as that passed upon in Abstract 50242. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained as claimed.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 22-1008

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee

v.

Travis Lee McKie

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Eastern

 ____________

Submitted: July 18, 2022

Filed: July 21, 2022

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Travis McKie appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded

guilty to a child pornography offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw and has

1The Honorable John A. Jarvey, then Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Southern District of Iowa, now retired.
filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the

reasonableness of the sentence.

Upon careful review, we conclude that McKie’s sentence was not

unreasonable, as there is no indication that the district court overlooked a relevant

factor, gave significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or committed a

clear error of judgment in weighing the relevant factors, see United States v.

Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461-62 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); and the court imposed a

sentence below the Guidelines range, see United States v. McCauley, 715 F.3d 1119,

1127 (8th Cir. 2013) (noting that when district court has varied below Guidelines

range, it is “nearly inconceivable” that court abused its discretion in not varying

downward further).

We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), and we find no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we

affirm, and we grant counsel’s motions to withdraw.

______________________________

-2-
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 92 (Monday, May 14, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27165-27166]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9163]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i> 10866 and <greek-i> 10867]


Kansas Disaster <greek-i> KS-00018

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major 
disaster for the State of Kansas ( FEMA-1699-DR), dated 5/6/2007.
    Incident: Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 5/4/2007 and continuing.
    Effective Date: 5/6/2007.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 7/5/2007.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 2/6/2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business

[[Page 27166]]

Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the President's major disaster declaration on 05/06/2007, applications 
for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other 
locally announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties (Physical Damage and Economic Injury Loans):
    Kiowa
Contiguous Counties (Economic Injury Loans Only):
    Kansas: Barber, Clark, Comanche, Edwards Ford, Pratt.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere.................      5.750
  Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      2.875
  Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere.................      8.000
  Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit           5.250
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
  Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit           4.000
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit      4.000
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 10866C 
and for economic injury is 108670.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. E7-9163 Filed 5-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit
      13.2




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




In
      connection with the Annual Report of Fundtech Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F
      for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yoram Bibring, Chief Financial
      Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
      pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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




Date:
              June 30, 2006/s/
                Yoram BibringYoram
                Bibring
              Chief
                Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial Officer)




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Fundtech Ltd. and will be retained by Fundtech Ltd. and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

JOSIAS PLEASANT, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2648

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

)

Opinion filed November 2, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee 

County; Susan Maulucci and Deno 

Economou, Judges.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and 

Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, 

Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Hurley, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee. 

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
33874.

#### MORRIS v. MORRIS.

Jordan, Justice.

This appeal by the husband in a divorce case is from the alimony judgment entered on a jury verdict.

1. The husband asserts that the court erred in awarding attorney fees after the jury had rendered its verdict.

Pretermitting the question of whether the trial judge properly reserved the right to award attorney fees, this question is now moot since the fees have been paid. *Edwards v. Edwards,*212 Ga. 291 (92 SE2d 17) (1956).

2. The husband contends that the court erred in modifying the decree entered on the jury’s verdict after the jury had dispersed.

The jury returned its verdict on January 12, 1978, making a division of the property of the parties. The verdict awarded the wife a car owned by the husband; all the Kresge stock (jointly owned); a sum of money held in savings (jointly owned); all items of furniture bought for the house; and an equal division of all antiques jointly owned which were purchased for resale and stored in the wife’s house.

In this division, one of the items given to the husband was a store and all property located in Gay, Georgia, and the inventory in the store. The judgment of the court entered on February 6, 1978, but not filed, followed the verdict. On March 17, 1978, the court modified the judgment by removing the item awarding the property in Gay, Georgia, to the husband, and replacing this item with one awarding only the personal property located in the store, an antique shop, and leaving the title to the real property as it had been previously. The husband and wife had owned the real property jointly as tenants in common, *592with right of survivorship.

Argued September 12, 1978

Decided November 22, 1978.

*Grace*W, *Thomas,*for appellant.

*John L. Watson, Jr.,*for appellee.

The husband contends.that under Code § 110-111 the verdict of a jury may not be amended in a matter of substance, and that the modification of the jury verdict was error. The wife contends that the jury’s award of the wife’s interest in the real property in Gay, Georgia, was an illegal grant of alimony to the husband from her property, and that the judge was authorized by Code § 110-112 to amend the verdict by deleting the illegal portion.

The jury’s verdict was a division of jointly owned property of the parties, and the husband was not illegally awarded alimony from the wife’s estate. *Acker v. Acker,*240 Ga. 592 (242 SE2d 107) (1978).

The trial judge erred in substantially modifying the verdict of the jury.

*Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.*

*All the Justices concur.*