alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO._______________ 

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 

JOSE E. DUQUE,

 Appellant;

§

§

§

§ 

COURT OF APPEALS 

NO. 01-15-00014-CR 

 v. §

§

§ 

§

TRIAL COURT 

No. 1363049-A 

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PETITION FOR 

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF APPELLANT 

 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW Jose E. Duque, by and through the undersigned attorney, whom 

very respectfully states as follows:

1. On September 15, 2015, the First Court of Appeals For The First District of 

Texas issued a Non Published, per curiam, “Memorandum Opinion” in Ex 

Parte Jose E. Duque, cause number NO. 01-15-00014-CR. 

2. Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review is due on October 15th, 2015. 

3. Pursuant to Rule 68.2(c) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the 

Petitioner respectfully requests a thirty (30) day extension to file his Petition 

for Discretionary Review (PDR). 

4. There have been no previous extensions to file the PDR in this cause. 

PD-1344-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 10/15/2015 3:00:14 PM

Accepted 10/15/2015 3:38:18 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
2

5. Appellant relies on the following facts as good cause for the requested 

extension:

a) During the last 30 days, counsel was actively working on another

case that had a Sentencing Hearing scheduled for October 7th, 2015 in the 

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa 

Division: U.S.A. v. Jose A. Rincon-Martinez, Criminal No.: 13:CR: 00332.

b) Counsel also have been preparing for a Suppression Hearing that is 

currently scheduled for October 27th, 2015 in the United States District Court 

for the District of Puerto Rico: U.S.A. v. Enrique Colon-Villegas, Criminal 

No. 14-592 (DRD).

6. As a result, counsel has not had sufficient time to prepare an adequate Petition

in this case.

7. This extension is not sought for purpose of delay.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Petitioner prays that this Court 

grant this Motion for Extension of Time to file Petitioner’s Petition for Discretionary 

Review.

Respectfully submitted,

__/s/ Octavio M. Rivera-Bujosa___

OCTAVIO M. RIVERA-BUJOSA

State Bar Number: 24081261

RIVERA Y BUJOSA LAW OFFICE 

333 Simonton Street

Conroe, Texas 77301

Phone: (832) 296-6048

Fax: (936) 756-5961
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that copies of the above-entitled and numbered petition for 

review have been served on both the District Attorney of Harris County, Texas, 

and the State Prosecuting Attorney, by delivery of a true copy to them on the 15th

day of October, 2015, by electronic service

 

 

_/s/ Octavio M. Rivera-Bujosa____

OCTAVIO M. RIVERA-BUJOSA

Attorney for Petitioner
#### ZUNI PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 89; Gallup-McKinley County Public School District No. 1, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Respondent. New Mexico State Department of Education, Intervenor.

No. 01-9541.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Feb. 23, 2006.

Ronald J. VanAmberg of Roth, VanAm-berg, Rogers, Ortiz, Fairbanks *&*Yepa, L.L.P., Santa Fe, NM (George W. Kozeli-ski of Gallup, NM, with him on the brief), for Petitioners.

Michael Robinson, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice (Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; Robert S. Greenspan and Peter R. Maier, Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice; and Stephen H. Freid and Mark W. Smith, Attorneys, U.S. Department of Education, with him *1290on the brief), Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Leigh M. Manasevit, Special Assistant Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, of Brustein *&*Manasevit, Washington, D.C., for Intervenor.

Before TACHA, Chief Judge, SEYMOUR, EBEL, KELLY, HENRY, BRISCOE, LUCERO, MURPHY, HARTZ, O’BRIEN, McCONNELL, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Two local educational agencies (LEAs) (Zuni Public School District No. 89 and Gallup-McKinley Public School District No. 1) filed a petition for review from the Secretary of Education’s decision that the State of New Mexico was equalized pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 7709(b) and the corresponding regulations at 34 C.F.R. § 222.162(a). *See also id.*pt. 222, subpt. K, app. A divided panel of this court denied the petition for review. *Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ.,*393 F.3d 1158, 1169 (10th Cir.2004). We granted rehearing en banc, and in accordance with our local rule, the judgment was vacated, the mandate stayed and the case was restored as a pending appeal. 10th Cir. R. 35.6. On rehearing en banc, the decision of the Secretary is affirmed by an equally divided court. The panel decision is hereby vacated. *See id.*
STATE OF ALASKA

) ) ss. FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

) AFFIDA YIT OF AGENCY RECORD OF PUBLIC COMMENT I, Rebecca Tyson Smith, Environmental Program Specialist for the Department of Environmental Conservation, being duly sworn, state the following: AppK In compliance with AS 44

.62

. 215, the Department of Environmental Conservation has kept a record of its use or rejection of factual or other substantive information that was submitted in writing and orally as public comment and that was relevant to the accuracy, coverage, or other aspect of the Department of Environmental Conservation regulations

on 18 AAC 50, Air Quality Control

, revising language related to air quality permitting and emission fees
,definitions related to fees, billing procedures, and cross references to fees. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this .......... ,,\.. E ,, •'·e

.Sf. **·~** ....**CJ~** •••••••••

• **&~**#, .,• ..._flj **·~t"\sslon ~··.(9~** ,, .,• '""" **.·;~,~·**"!o.J••r #_., • **-~·**v
**~**••

- **[NOTARY~E~J**

co, ••• **~** : i NOTARY

! ; **:~**PUBLIC J*E **:~\.**

...: ·-

· ..**~**

• . **··0~** ...... \S\ ..•• ••• 7th **o''~~···,-:::?**..... **~**.. **~i:i-**....... **;.._\,'?)'~**
.... .. ,,ce of r •'' ••••••••••••

th, Environmental Program Specialist _ _..;;.... _ Notary Public in an State of Alaska My commission expires: liooQo- 4.1.1........,........,.......,......., ..._ _
Exhibit
99.1





Atlantic
BancGroup, Inc. announces first quarter 2008 results.





JACKSONVILLE
BEACH, FLORIDA, May 5, 2008





Atlantic
BancGroup, Inc., the parent company of Oceanside Bank, with four locations in
the Jacksonville Beaches and East Jacksonville, Florida, announces first quarter
2008 results.





Consistent
with local, state, and national trends for financial institutions as reported
throughout the various daily newspapers and other financial news sources, we
experienced a decline in earnings; however, Oceanside Bank remained
well-capitalized under current regulatory guidelines. Amidst this depressed real
estate market in our trade area, we posted consolidated net income of $47,000
for the three months ended March 31, 2008, a decline of 89.8% from consolidated
net income of $460,000 in the same period of 2007.  Fully diluted
earnings per share for the three months ended March 31, 2008, totaled $0.04 as
compared with $0.37 for the same period of 2007.





Our
results for the first quarter of 2008 included additional reserves set aside to
offset loan charge-offs and real estate foreclosures during the first quarter of
2008. The provision for loan losses totaled $224,000 for the first quarter of
2008, rising 261.3% over 2007 levels.  The cost to manage the loan
portfolio and carry foreclosed assets increased with direct expenses for
foreclosed assets charged to operations of $92,000.  Other related
costs such as collection, legal, and audit expenses also
increased.





Consolidated
total assets at March 31, 2008, reached $263.7 million, an increase of 4.6% over
March 31, 2007.  Consolidated deposits and consolidated net loans grew
7.9% and 7.8%, respectively, over the same period, with consolidated deposits at
$222.7 million and consolidated net loans at $194.5 million at March 31,
2008.





Atlantic
BancGroup, Inc. is a publicly-traded bank holding company, trading on the NASDAQ
Capital Market, symbol ATBC.
Exhibit 32.1

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.ss.1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer of Medical Nutrition USA, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certify, to the best of my knowledge, that the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
the Company for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2004 ( the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

April 28, 2004                          /s/ Francis A. Newman
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Francis A. Newman
                                        Chief Executive Officer
#### HARTLEY v. BEAN.

April 9, 1836.

*Rule to show cause why the plaintiff should not pay double costs on the appeal.*

In replevin, where the *defendu\t*his hvowed tV rent m nrrear. *evA*the^e has been an award of arbitrators, uruhn sm- < -t 3"10, in lavour oí the avowant, the plaintiff, on appeal, is not compelled to pay double costs.

THIS was an action of teplev in. The defendant *avowed*for rent in arrear. There was an award of mbitraiois under the act of IS10, in favour of the *avowant.*The plnintitT appealed. The defendant then obtained a rule on the plain';tf to show cause why (lie plaintiff should not pay double costs on the appeal,

*Bradford,*in support of the rale,

tefeired *to*the JOfh section of *the*act of assembly of the 21st of March 1“72, míame >o disties-es for rent, *(Purd. Dig.*783, *edit, of*1S3U) and to ¡he 10th, 11th and 12th sections of the “act regulating atbitnuions" of the 20th of March 1810. *Purd. Dig.*48.

*Randall, contra,*

Pettit, *President,*

referred to his manuscript note of the cose of Wilson r. Wyeth el ah, in this court, determined on the 51h day of June 1833, in which, upon an appeal from the ptothonotaiyY taxation of costs, it had been ruled that double costs wete nut required on the appeal, under similar eucumsutnees. He said that the court now adhered to that decision, and considered the pi artice as settled in conformity with it; that the 10th section of the act of 1772 evi*169dently contemplated the recovery by the defendant of doable costs of suit when the judgment was *a final*one; that the language of the act of 1810 was satisfied by the payment., at the time of the appeal, of the costs which bad then actually accrued, and was to be construed liberally in favour of the constitutional right of trial by jury.

Rule discharged.
Exhibit
      10.5

    


    Employment
      Agreement

    (English
      Translation) 

    


    This
      Agreement is entered into on the 1st
      of
      June,
      2007 by and between Beijing LongYi JiuZhou Dismutase Biology Technology Co.
      LTD
      (hereinafter referred to as “Party A”) and Ms. Wei Wang (hereinafter “Party B”).


    


    Whereas,
      Party A is willing to offer Party B employment, and Party B is willing to accept
      such offer subject to the following terms and conditions: 

    


    1.
      Term of Employment 

    


    The
      parties agree that the term of this agreement shall be from this 1st
      of June,
      2007 to the 1st
      of June,
      2010. 

    


    2.
      Party B’s duties (in specific description) 

    


    Party
      B’s
      duties shall include

    


    2.1 According
      to Party A’s request which was discussed and communicated between A and B
      before, Party B acts as the President of Party A. Party A will evaluate Party
      B’s working performance. Party A has the right to change Party B’s position
      according to Party A’s evaluation on Party B’s capability and working
      performance. 

    


    2.2 Party
      B’s
      duties should be in accordance with Party A’s regulations issued under related
      Chinese laws. Party B should perform its duties according to Party A’s request
      and arrangement. 

    


    3.
      Party B’s Obligations and the Termination of the Agreement


    


    3.1 Party
      B
      shall handle in a confidential manner all matters relating to Party A’s
      business. This confidentiality obligation shall remain effective during the
      period specified in the regulations or working rules concerned. In case that
      no
      time period is specified, it remains effective for successive three (3) years
      after Party B’s employment under this Agreement is terminated. 

    


    In
      the
      event that Party B violates any related law or regulation, or breaches this
      Agreement or working rules concerned, Party A may in its discretion terminate
      this Agreement. Party A also reserves the right to file lawsuits against Party
      B
      for civil liabilities. 

    


    3.2
       During
      the term of this Agreement, Party B shall follow the directions and instructions
      of Party A to perform his/her duties in accordance with all regulations and
      relevant working rules.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-31241

Wes Wilson, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, VERSUS Mobil Oil Corporation, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(95-CV-4174-R)

January 28, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *
Plaintiffs-Appellants, franchisees of SpeeDee Oil Change
Systems, Inc., appeal the ruling of the district court granting the

defendants’ motion fo r summary judgment. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs’ tying claims failed to satisfy the requisites of federal and state antitrust laws. Having considered the evidence in the record, the briefs, and

the oral arguments, we find no reversible error in the district

court’s decision. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court

is AFFIRMED

.
# C_2015065EN.01001202.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Cagliari — Italy) — Società Edilizia Turistica Alberghiera Residenziale (SETAR) v Comune di Quartu S. Elena

(Case C-551/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2008/98/EC - Article 15 - Waste management - Possibility for the waste producer to carry out the waste treatment independently - National transposition law adopted, but not yet in force - Expiry of the transposition period - Direct effect))

(2015/C 065/17)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Cagliari

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Società Edilizia Turistica Alberghiera Residenziale (SETAR)

Applicant:

Defendant: Comune di Quartu S. Elena

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

EU law and Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which transposes into national law a provision of that directive, but the entry into force of which is deferred pending the adoption of a subsequent internal measure, if that entry into force takes place after the end of the transposition period prescribed by the directive.

Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/98, read in conjunction with Articles 4 and 13 of that directive, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation under which no provision is made permitting a waste producer or waste holder to dispose of that waste independently and accordingly to be exempted from liability for payment of a municipal tax for the disposal of waste, provided that that legislation meets the requirements entailed by the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 12, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21141]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL137-1b; FRL-5868-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) revision request submitted by the State of Illinois on May 14, 
1996, for the purpose of making a change to the regulatory control 
period used in Illinois' current 7.2 pounds per square inch Reid Vapor 
Pressure rules for the Metro-East St. Louis ozone nonattainment area 
which includes Madison, Monroe, and St. Clair Counties. In addition, 
EPA is proposing to approve a correction to the identification number 
for the Clark Oil Company listed in Illinois' Marine Vessel Loading 
rule. In the final rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is 
approving this action as a direct final rule without prior proposal 
because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no 
adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in 
the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response 
to that direct final rule, no further activity is contemplated in 
relation to this proposed rule. If EPA receives written adverse 
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all written 
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment 
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this 
notice should do so at this time.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed rule must be received on or 
before September 11, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, 
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR18-J), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Copies of the State submittal and EPA's analysis of it are 
available for inspection at: Regulation Development Section, Air 
Programs Branch (AR18-J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco Acevedo, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6061.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct 
final rule published in the rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: July 1, 1997.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-21141 Filed 8-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-30101

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICO D. LEWIS,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-50048-001

- - - - - - - - - -

July 19, 1996

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rico D. Lewis appeals his sentence for felon in possession

of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues

that the district court failed to give adequate reasons to

support its upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines and

failed to consider intermediate offense levels. 

Lewis' 18 criminal history points gave him 5 points more

than the minimum required to be placed in criminal history

category VI. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A, sentencing table. The 
No. 96-30101

-2-

inadequacy of a defendant's criminal history category is an

acceptable basis for an upward departure. See United States v.

Laury, 985 F.2d 1293, 1310 (5th Cir. 1993)(defendant's 20

criminal history points well above the 13 required to place him

in criminal history category VI). The district court relied on

the inadequacy of Lewis' criminal history score and his history

of repeated acts of similar criminal activity, not on his

educational training or job history, in deciding to depart. The

district court's reason for departing upwardly was not clearly

erroneous. 

The district court properly calculated Lewis' offense level

by using the criminal history category points in excess of the 13

required to reach criminal history catagory IV to increase his

offense level incrementally. See United States v. Rosogie, 21

F.3d 632, 634-35 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Lewis also argues that the district court erred in awarding

a one-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A). Any

error as to the district court's determination that all three

firearms located in the car constituted relevant conduct and are

attributable to Lewis is harmless. See Williams v. United

States, 503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992); United States v. CabralCastilo, 35 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.

Ct. 1157 (1995).

AFFIRMED.
Kashagan

field

Armenia

Turkmenistan

Azerbaijan

K a z a k h s t a n

R u s s i a

Georgia

Don

Volga-Don

Volga

Aral

Sea

Garabogazkol

Aylagy

Amu

Darya

Canal

C a s p i a n

S e a

Karachaganak

field

Kashagan

field

Tengiz

field

Shah Deniz

field

Azeri, Chirag, 

and Guneshli 

Deep 

oilfields

Volga

Turkey

Iraq

I r a n

Neka port

Uzbekistan

TBILISI

Kashagan

field

Armenia

YEREVAN

TEHRAN Boundary representation is

not necessarily authoritative.

BAKU

ASHGABAT

DI Cartography Center/MPG 761781AI (R00918) 2-03

Selected Energy Projects of the Caspian Sea Region

Kashagan

field

Atyrau

Aqtau

Tabriz

Makhachkala

Turkmenbasy

Oil and gas field

Prospective field

Existing oil pipeline

Existing gas pipeline

Planned, proposed, or

 under construction oil pipeline

Planned, proposed, or

 under construction gas pipeline

Refinery

Producing block

Exploration block

Northern Early

Oil Pipeline

100,000 b/d

Atyrau-Samara

Pipeline

300,000 b/d

Western Early

Oil Pipeline

115,000 b/d

Proposed Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan

Pipeline 1 million b/d

Neka-Tehran

Pipeline

50,000 b/d

(first stage)

b/d = barrels per day

Caspian Pipeline

Consortium (CPC) Project

560,000 b/d (first stage)

0

0

150 Kilometers

150 Miles
Exhibit 32.2



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 Quarterly Report of Big Sky Industries V, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.



Dated: February 20, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer

Big Sky Industries V, Inc.