alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### NUMBER 13
- 17
- 00 252
- CR


## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

PHILLIP JACKSON , A ppellant ,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, A ppellee

.

On Appeal from the 105 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.



## SUPPLEMENTAL ABATEMENT ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam
Appellant, Phillip Jackson , filed a notice of appeal with this Court from a judgment nunc pro tunc signed on April 20, 2017 . The record currently before the Court fails to include a certification of appellant ’ s right to appeal. This appeal was abated and

remanded by this Court on August 23, 2017, to the trial court for entry of a certification of2

appellant’s right to appeal. The trial court has advised this Court that a hearing was

scheduled and appellant failed to appear. This sequence of events requires us to effectuate our responsibility to avoid further delay and to preserve the parties' rights. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 37.3(a)(1). Accordingly, this appeal remains abated

. T he trial court shall utilize whatever means necessary to make appropriate findings and recommendations concerning the following: (1) whether appellant can be located; (2) whether appellant has abandoned his appeal; and ( 3 ) if any other orders are necessary to ensure the proper and timely pursuit of appellant ’ s appeal. If it is determined appellant has not abandoned his appeal, the trial court should enter a certification of the appellant’s right to appeal. The trial court shall cause its finding and reco mmendations, together with any orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, to be included in a supplemental clerk's record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental reporter's record of any proceedings to be prepared. The supp lemental clerk's record and supplemental reporter's record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court within thirty days from
the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM Do not publish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed t he 17th day of November , 20 1 7

.
41882 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Type of device Equipment authorization required

Other Class B digital devices & peripherals ................................................................................................................... Verification.

Class A digital devices, peripherals & external switching power supplies ..................................................................... Verification.

All other devices ............................................................................................................................................................. Verification.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–20398 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 544

[Docket No. 96–130; Notice 03]

RIN 2127–AG56

Insurer Reporting Requirements; List

of Insurers Required To File Reports;

Correction

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Correction to final regulation.

SUMMARY: This document contains

corrections to the final regulation

[Docket No. 96–130; Notice 03], which

was published Monday, June 23, 1997,

(62 FR 33754). The regulation related to

the information reporting requirements

for passenger motor vehicle insurers

that are required to file reports on their

motor vehicle theft loss experiences,

pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33112.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 23, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Rosalind Proctor (202) 366–0846.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction of Publication

Accordingly, the publication on June

23, 1997, (62 FR 33754) of this final

regulation [Docket No. 96–130; Notice

03], which were the subject of FR Doc.

97–16334, is corrected as follows:

PART 544—CORRECTED

Paragraph 1. On page 33756, in the

first column, in the words of issuance,

remove the words ‘‘proposed to be’’.

Paragraph 1. On page 33756, in

amendatory instruction 1, the words

‘‘would be revised to read as follows’’

are corrected to read ‘‘continues to read

as follows’’.

Paragraph 2. On page 33756, in the

amendatory instructions 2, 3, 4, 6, and

7, the words ‘‘would be revised to read

as follows’’ are corrected to read ‘‘is

revised to read as follows’’.

Dated as signed: July 29, 1997.

L. Robert Shelton,

Associate Administrator for Safety

Performance Standards.

[FR Doc. 97–20478 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 4039]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2022]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Bonneville Power Administration; Notice of Scoping Meeting for 
Development of Retail Wheeling Policy

AGENCY: Bonneville Power Administration, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Bonneville Power Administration will hold a meeting to 
begin scoping of issues related to the development of a policy proposal 
for retail wheeling over the Federal Columbia River Transmission 
System.

DATES: This meeting is scheduled for February 4, 1997, from 9:00 a.m. 
to 12:00 noon.

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at the Red Lion Columbia River 
Hotel, Klamath Room, 1401 N. Hayden Island Drive, Portland, Oregon.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Mills, Bonneville Power 
Administration Transmission Business Line, (503) 230-7505; or Michael 
McFarland, Bonneville Power Administration Transmission Business Line, 
(503) 230-3688.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bonneville Power Administration will 
initiate a public process to develop a retail wheeling policy for the 
Federal Columbia River Transmission System. This process will start 
with a public meeting to begin scoping the issues to be addressed in 
such a policy development. These issues include (1) Impacts on system 
reliability; (2) potential for differing state approaches; (3) 
technical constraints related to scheduling and coordination; and (4) 
impacts on existing wholesale power contracts.

    Issued in Portland, OR on January 21, 1997.
Paul S. Majkut,
Acting General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-2022 Filed 1-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
# C_2013377EN.01001002.xml

| 21.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 377/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 377/10

---

Order of the President of the Court of 2 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim — Germany) — Ekkehard Aleweld v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

(Case C-262/13) (1)

1

2013/C 377/23

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.

1

---
April 23, 1952

No. 8109.

#### United *States*v. *L. Bamberger & Co.*

Entered at Newark, N. J. Reap. Dec. 8081. Motion by appellant.
# C_2015138EN.01000801.xml

| 27.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 138/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 138/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-479/13) (1)

1

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - VAT - Application of a reduced rate - Supply of digital books or electronic books))

(2015/C 138/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Soulay and F. Dintilhac, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: M. Jacobs and J.-C. Halleux, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| (1) | Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to the supply of digital or electronic books, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax as amended by Council Directive 2010/88/EU of 7 December 2010, read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC; |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to the supply of digital or electronic books, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 96 and 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax as amended by Council Directive 2010/88/EU of 7 December 2010, read in conjunction with Annexes II and III to that directive and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC;

| (2) | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| (3) | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.

1

---
November 17, 1977

Acceptance of Cash Prize by a Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation Examiner

You have inquired whether, in light of the prohibitions contained in 

18 U.S.C. §213, an examiner employed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) may accept a cash prize from a grocery store 

affiliated with a bank examined by that official.

We understand that all the names and telephone numbers from a 

town’s telephone directory were placed into a drum and that each 

week the grocery store manager drew' a name and telephoned that 

individual. If the individual had made a purchase during that week (as 

evidenced by a card stamped by a store clerk and given each customer 

making a purchase), he or she would win the prize. If the individual 

had not made a purchase, no prize was awarded and the amount of the 

prize plus an additional $100 would be carried over to the next week. 

In this case, the examiner won a prize amounting to $1,000.

Section 213 prohibits an examiner or assistant examiner from accepting a “loan or gratuity” from any bank examined by him or “from any 

person connected therewith.” We understand that this statutory language has been interpreted by the FD IC to prohibit an FD IC examiner 

from accepting a loan or gratuity from any bank examined by him or 

from any entity affiliated with the bank through a bank holding company or otherwise. As mentioned above, the grocery store is apparently 

affiliated with a bank examined by the examiner.

We do not believe that the cash prize, randomly awarded, should be 

regarded as a “gratuity” within the meaning of § 213. Its predecessor 

was enacted as § 22 of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 272. 

The report of the House Committee on Banking and Currency described the provision in the following terms:

In this section it is sought to correct a bad practice, all too 

prevalent, of paying fees to bank examiners in order that they may

77-65 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE

GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE FEDERAL

DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

264
make a favorable report upon the condition of a bank; . . . The 

extent of [this practice] cannot be stated, but that [it prevails] is 

certain; and it is equally clear that [it is] opposed to public welfare 

and to sound banking, besides being wholly at variance with fundamental principles of honorable personal conduct. H.R. Rep. No. 

69, 63d Cong., 1st Sess., 72 (1913).

It appears from this description that Congress intended to bar payments 

specifically directed at bank examiners and therefore likely to have a 

corrupting influence. See also, United States v. Bristol, 473 F. 2d 439, 

442-43 (5th Cir. 1973). A prize awarded on a random basis meets 

neither of these tests, and we see no reason to give the statute an 

expansive reading to cover a situation, such as that present here, where 

the principal aims of the statute would not be advanced.

Therefore, based on the facts as given to us, we see no legal objection to the bank examiner’s acceptance of the cash prize.

L e o n U l m a n

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

265
#### Sam F. COLE, Jr., Substitute Trustee, Estate of Prudence Reynolds, Deceased, et al., petitioners, v. Juanita MITCHELL, Personal Representative of the Estate of Billy Gwin Mitchell, Deceased.

No. 98-321.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. 19, 1998.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, Western Division, denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF OIL STATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Cindy B. TaylorName:
    Cindy B. TaylorDate: July 30, 2009
SERVE D JUN E 4,201 0 ' " • ' '^'••''-.'%'""''"^' ^ U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N , -

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C IN TH E MATTERO F CLOU D DANCE RAVIATIO N

Respondent . FA A DOCKE T NO . CPlOSOOOOl (Civi l Penalty Proceeding ) DM S NO . FAA-2010-019 2

NOTIC EO FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofore designateda s Cas e No . 2009SO150233 ) ha s bee n assigne dt o Administrativ e La w Judg e Isaa c D . Benkin . Al l future pleading s an dothe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve do n th e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , an dth e othe r persons o n th e attache dServic e List . / CbnnJ

^ A . Ybde r Chie f Administrativ e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis tFA A DOCKE T NO . CPlOSOOOO l (Civi l Penalty Action ) ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Denni s R . Haber , Respondent' s Counse l Denni s R . Haber , P.A . 892 5 S.W . 14 8 Street , Suit e 20 0 Miami , FL3317 6 TEL : 305-256-300 2 FAX : 305-256-300 4 Andre aMichell e Harper , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counsel , ASO- 7 Southern Regio n Federal Aviatio n Administratio n P.O . Bo x 2063 6 Atlanta , Georgi a3032 0 TEL : 404-305-520 0 FAX : 404-305-522 3 Th e Honorabl e Isaa c D . Benkin , Administrativ e Law Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 New f Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mEl2-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorne y 202-366-213 9 Legal Assistan t

202-366-213 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

Service was b

y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e the followin g address : Federa

l Aviation Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 .
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Terry L. DENMAN.

No. 60295.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 21, 1977.

In re: Terry L. Denman, applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ refused. There is no error in the ruling of the trial judge.
No. 95-1081.

#### Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc., et al. *v.*Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Department of Labor, et al.,

519 U.S. 248. .Motion of respondent Maggie Yates for attorney’s fees and expenses denied without *1154prejudice to refiling in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2083 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2083

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the Secretary of 
   the Treasury from requiring that taxpayers reconcile amounts with 
respect to reportable payment transactions to amounts related to gross 
                          receipts and sales.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 9, 2012

Mr. Thune (for himself and Ms. Cantwell) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the Secretary of 
   the Treasury from requiring that taxpayers reconcile amounts with 
respect to reportable payment transactions to amounts related to gross 
                          receipts and sales.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``1099K Overreach Prevention Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING RECONCILIATION OF AMOUNTS WITH RESPECT 
              TO REPORTABLE PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS TO AMOUNTS RELATED TO 
              GROSS RECEIPTS AND SALES.

    (a) In General.--Section 6050W of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (h) and 
inserting after subsection (f) the following new subsection:
    ``(g) Reconciliation With Receipts Not Required.--A taxpayer shall 
not be required to reconcile on any return of tax for a taxable year 
amounts with respect to reportable payment transactions, as furnished 
to the taxpayer pursuant to this section, to amounts related to gross 
receipts or sales.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2011.
                                 <all>
```
1

Updates To NEEDS v.5.14 incremental to v.5.13 based on External Engagement

March 25, 2015

This document provides a user-friendly reference to identify unit level updates made in NEEDS v.5.14.

EPA Base Case v.5.13 and NEEDS v.5.13 were released in November 2013. Since that time we have 

obtained comments through Notices of Data Availability (NODAs), on EPA’s 2011 and 2018 air quality 

modeling platforms, issued in November 2013 and January 2014, respectively. In addition, we have 

received comments and feedback on NEEDS through our power sector modeling website 

at http://www.epa.gov/powersectormodeling.

We have reviewed and researched all comments for reliability and consistency to determine their 

applicability in NEEDS v.5.14 to be used as input to EPA Base Case v.5.14. The spreadsheet titled 

‘Updates to NEEDS’ lists those comments with the following fields of information:

- Source of the comments (commenter/affiliation)

- Unit identifiers (unique ID, plant name, unit number, state)

- Data field of interest (a single unit might have more than one entry for different parameter

specifications)

- Value in NEEDS v.5.13

- Suggested/updated value

- Documentation of comments (summary of the comment)

- EPA review (whether/how to revise a data parameter)

- Notes (explanation for the cases where EPA does not make a revision)

EPA has also made updates as described in ‘EPA Base Case v.5.14 Using IPM Incremental 

Documentation’ that is summarized below:

- Committed units with online year of 2015 or earlier were reviewed and updated.

- For fossil units in California that are not assigned NOx rates from 2011 ETS, default NOx rates that 

assume the presence of a SCR are assigned.

- Nuclear unit capacity and projected up rates are based on AEO 2014.

- Retirement related information from EPA research (in addition to above NEEDS comments) was 

researched, reviewed and incorporated.
EXHIBIT
31.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Robert
T. Faber, certify that:




1. I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GoldSpring,
Inc.;




2.Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;





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





4. I am
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
have:





a)designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;





b)evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a
date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and





c)
presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;





5. I have
disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and
the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):





a)all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize,
and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and





b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.





/s/ ROBERT
      T. FABERRobert
      T. FaberPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer and
                Chief
      Financial Officer




Date: May
18, 2009