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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4157

MARCUS TYRONE WILLIAMSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.

(CR-00-288)

Submitted: August 10, 2001

Decided: September 17, 2001

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Marcus Tyrone Williamson appeals his 120-month custodial sentence entered on his guilty plea to one count of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West Supp.

2000). Williamson noted a timely appeal, and his counsel filed a brief

pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), in which

he represents that there are no arguable issues of merit in this appeal.

However, in his brief, counsel addressed whether his failure to file a

motion to suppress evidence relating exclusively to a count the Government agreed to dismiss as part of Williamson’s plea agreement

could constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. 

In order for a defendant to challenge his conviction on direct

appeal based on his counsel’s ineffectiveness, that ineffectiveness

must conclusively appear on the face of the record. See United States

v. Martinez, 136 F.3d 972, 979 (4th Cir. 1998). Here, Williamson’s

plea agreement, which contemplates the dismissal of count one, foreclosed the necessity of filing a motion to suppress evidence relating

to that count. Accordingly, because the record does not conclusively

show that Williamson’s counsel was ineffective, we agree that this

issue is meritless. 

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and

find no reversible error. Williamson’s conviction and sentence are

therefore affirmed. However, this Court requires that counsel inform

his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the

United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous,

counsel may then move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation, by a motion stating that a copy thereof was served on the

client. In light of these requirements, we deny Williamson’s counsel’s

motion to withdraw as premature. We dispense with oral argument

2 UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMSON
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. WILLIAMSON 3
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1363 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1363

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prevent dividends 
 received from corporations in tax havens from receiving a reduced tax 
                                 rate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 30, 2005

 Mr. Baucus (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Kerry) 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 prevent dividends 
 received from corporations in tax havens from receiving a reduced tax 
                                 rate.

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION TO THE DEFINITION OF QUALIFIED FOREIGN 
              CORPORATION.

    (a) In General.--Clause (ii) of section 1(h)(11)(C) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to dividends on stock readily tradable 
on United States securities market) is amended by striking ``by such 
corporation if the stock'' and all that follows and inserting ``by such 
corporation if--
                                    ``(I) the stock with respect to 
                                which such dividend is paid is readily 
                                tradable on an established securities 
                                market in the United States, and
                                    ``(II) such corporation is created 
                                or organized under the laws of a 
                                foreign country which has a 
                                comprehensive income tax system which 
                                the Secretary determines is 
                                satisfactory for the purposes of this 
                                paragraph.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to dividends received after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# Diario Oficial C 93I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0928 |
| --- | --- |
| Diario Oficial
  de la Unión Europea | C 093I |
| | |
| Edición en lengua española | Comunicaciones e informaciones | 64.° año19 de marzo de 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0928

Diario Oficial

de la Unión Europea

C 093I

Edición en lengua española

Comunicaciones e informaciones

64.° año19 de marzo de 2021

---

| Sumario | Página |
| --- | --- |
| | Corrección de errores |
| | Corrección de errores de la Declaración conjunta del Parlamento Europeo, del Consejo y de la Comisión Europea relativa a la Conferencia sobre el Futuro de Europa — Colaborar con los ciudadanos por la democracia: construir una Europa más resiliente ( DO C 91 I de 18.3.2021 ) | 1 |

Sumario

Página

Corrección de errores

Corrección de errores de la Declaración conjunta del Parlamento Europeo, del Consejo y de la Comisión Europea relativa a la Conferencia sobre el Futuro de Europa — Colaborar con los ciudadanos por la democracia: construir una Europa más resiliente ( DO C 91 I de 18.3.2021 )

( DO C 91 I de 18.3.2021 )

1

---

| ES | |
| --- | --- |

ES

---

Corrección de errores

| 19.3.2021 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | CI 93/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2021

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

CI 93/1

---

Corrección de errores de la Declaración conjunta del Parlamento Europeo, del Consejo y de la Comisión Europea relativa a la Conferencia sobre el Futuro de Europa — Colaborar con los ciudadanos por la democracia: construir una Europa más resiliente

(
  Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea C 91 I de 18 de marzo de 2021
  )

(2021/C 93 I/01)

En la página de sumario, en la cubierta, y en la página 1, en la cabecera:

donde dice:

«PARLAMENTO EUROPEO»,

debe decir:

«PARLAMENTO EUROPEO

CONSEJO

COMISIÓN EUROPEA».

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 16, 2013

NO. 03

- 13

- 00010

- CV

Christopher Rogers, Appellant

v.

Amy Rogers, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

IT APPEARING to this Court that the appellant has neither paid

, nor made arrangements to pay

for the clerk’s record; has not submitted a status report regarding this a ppeal, and, accordingly,

has failed to prosecute the appeal: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that

the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. IT IS FURTHER ordered that the appellant

pay all costs relating to this appeal both in thi s Court and the court below; and that this decision

be certified below for observance.
01/23/201 2 11:2 1 FA X 202493511 2 FA A . DM S 001/00 3



# RECEIVE D JA N 

### 1 9 20 B U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S ,.- , . 

### WASHINGTON , DC . HEARIN G DOCKE T I N TH E MATTE ROF : ISLAND BIRDS , TNG

. Respondent DOCKJCTNO . FAA-20n-100 8 ^ FA A CAS E NO . 2010SO19030 9 

### V Judg e J.E . Sulliva

n J - :

•;i>

- z2 j '- ^

a " Join t Sectio n 13.217/Rul c 26(i ) Repor t Submitte db y Complainan t FAA an dResponden t

Islan dBird , Inc . 1 . PuTSuai-i

t t o 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.21 7 an dFed.R.Civ.P . 26(1) ; atcleconfeTcnc c -wa s he\ do n Januar y 12 , 2012 , an dwa s attende db y (I ) Rya n Landers , counse l fo

r Complainant , an

d(2 ) Talbo t Marrin , counse l fo

r Respondent . 2 . Th e partie s hav e discusse dsettlement , but hav e no t reache dasettlement . Settlement discussion s wil l continu e throug h th e discover y phas e 3 . Th e panie s wil l exchang e th e discover y disclosure s require db y Rul e 26(a)(1 ) b y Februar y 10 . 2012 . 4 . Th e panies agre e tha

t initial discover

y request s wil l b e mad e b y Februar y 10 ^ 2012 . Th e partie s will hav e unti l Marc h 9 , 2012 , to respon dto initia l discover y requests . 5 . Th e partie s agre e that follow-up discovery request s wil l h e mad e b y Marc h 23 ^ 2012 . Th e partie s hav e unti l Apri l 13 , 2012 , to respon dto follow-up discover y requests . 6 . An

y objection s to discovery request s mus t b e mad e to th e requestin g party withi n tw o week s o f th e discovery request . 7 . Th e partie s agre e that all dispositiv e motion s mus t b e filedb y Apri l 20 , 2012 .- QM S 0)002/00 3 01/23/201 2 U-2 2 FA X 202493514 2 FA A

S . Th e panie s agre e tha t airial th e wee

k of Ma y 14 , 2012 , woul db e bes t fo r them . Respectivel y submitte dthi s 1 St h day o f January , 2012 . Rya n M . Lander s

Kathlee n A . Yodic e "v^//>-'«Vi.. .

^C^AT X ^ - >''U^^^Ju ^ Talbo t M . Marti n i^//^r. ^ -r^\<ia.- ^- nM ^ 01003/00 3 01/23/201 2 11-2 2 FA X 202493514 2 FA A

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb y certif

y tha t th e foregoin g Section

^ 13.2 1 7/Rule 26( 0 Repo n wa s sen t a s follows : original an don e cop y vi acertifie dmai l an dFederal Expres s to ; Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washinsion , D.C . 2059 1 Attention : Rearin g Docke t ClcrV. , AGC-43 0 Wilbiu : Wrigh

t Building

- Suit

e 2W100 0 on e cop y vi afacsimile , cenifie dmail , an dFedera l Expres s to : Th e Honorabl e J.E . Sulhvan Administrativ e La

w Judg e OfGc e of Hearings , M-20 , Roo mE l 2-32 0 TJ-S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 1200 New Jerse y Avenue , S E Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloo r Washington . D C 2059 0 facsimile : (202 ) 366-753 6 on e cop y vi acertifie dmai l an dregula r mai l to : Kathleen A . Yodice . Esq . 41 1 Aviatio n Wa

y Suit e 2i 5 Frederick . MD 2170 1 

# /jU ^ ^.^Mi y

Date d
Helping People Help the Land

Conservation Activity Plan

Irrigation Water Management

December 2011

Irrigation Water 

Management

An irrigation water management 

conservation activity plan is a 

	







landowner minimize soil erosion, 

improve water quality, and reduce 

energy consumption.

 

NRCS Technical Service Providers 

(TSPs) prepare these plans using 

inputs such as:


 
 




 by crop


 
 





 salinity and nutrients


 
 






 
 




 rates

Conservation practices 

recommended by such a plan can 

include:


 
 





 lining


 
 





 
 
!
!



 and micro-irrigation


 
 





 management


 
 "




 
 #




 
 





$

!





www.nrcs.usda.gov 




“Technical Service Providers.”

www.nrcs.usda.gov

USDA is an equal opportunity 

provider and employer.
256 La. 254

#### Henry H. GIBSON, Sr., and Henry H. Gibson, Jr. v. The KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY (Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company).

No. 50571.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 8, 1970.

In re: Henry H. Gibson, Sr. and Henry H. Gibson, Jr., applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Jefferson. 233 So.2d 26.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 25, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51303 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SANTOS OMAR-PEREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-02-CR-497-4

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

Counsel appointed to represent Santos Omar-Perez in this
direct criminal appeal has moved for leave to withdraw and has
filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U. S. 738 (1967). Omar-Perez has not filed a response. Our independent
review of the record and counsel’s brief shows that there are no
nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for
leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and this appeal is DISMISSED. S ee 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000943906
<NAME>                        WNC HOUSING TAX CREDIT FUND V L.P., SERIES 4
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                                   0
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         0
<PP&E>                                                   0
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    0
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             0
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         0
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                             0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0
        


</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joseph SIEGEL.

No. 62248.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 2, 1978.

In re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 354 So.2d 525.

Writ granted. Case remanded for new habitual offender hearing; evidence of pri- or convictions properly authenticated should be admitted in evidence.
CITY OF HOUSTON Annise D. Parker 

Office of the Mayor Mayor 

P.O. Box 1562 

Houston, Texas 77251-1562 

Telephone — Dial 311 

www.houstontx.gov 

May 6, 2015 

The Honorable Anthony R. Foxx 

Secretary of Transportation 

US Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

The Honorable John F. Kerry 

Secretary of State 

US Department of State 

2201 C Street NW 

Washington, DC 20520 

Dear Secretaries Foxx and Kerry: 

As the home to one of the country's ten busiest airports, the City of Houston holds significant 

interest in ensuring that U.S. airlines — indeed, all air carriers — are provided a fair and level 

playing field to compete for routes. It creates healthy competition in the marketplace, producing 

more choices and lower fares for passengers. 

However, it has been brought to my attention that a small group of state-owned airlines in the 

Arabian Gulf are alleged to be receiving substantial subsidies from their governments and are 

therefore violating the longtime Open Skies policy designed to foster healthy competition. 

I respectfully request the federal government investigate these allegations, and, if proven to be 

true, take appropriate action by opening a dialogue with the governments of Qatar and the United 

Arab Emirates to address such subsidies. 

Regards, 

Annise D. Parker 

Mayor
No. 9514.

#### Linney *v.*MacGregor et al.

(Decided March 13, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Summit county.

*Messrs. Rogers, Rowley, Bradley & Rockwell,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. John MacGregor, Jr.,*and *Messrs. Stuart & Stuart,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ex parte Miguel Manuel Villalobos Jr.

, * Original Habeas Corpus Proceeding

No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 00 7

- CR * January 1 3 , 20 2 2

* Per Curiam Memorand um Opinio n

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.

This court has considered Miguel Manuel Villalobos Jr. ’s application for writ

of habeas corpus and concludes that the application for writ of habeas corpus should

be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with thi s court’s

opinion, the application for habeas corpus is dismissed.
#### Ex parte Hugh Otis BYNUM, Jr.

SC 2038.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 12, 1977.

ALMON, Justice.

WRIT QUASHED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

All the Justices concur, except EMBRY, J., who recuses himself.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47673-47674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23894]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following

[[Page 47674]]

National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meeting:

    Name of SEP: Science Enrichment Program.
    Date: September 29-30, 1997.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: National Cancer Institute, Executive Plaza North, 
Conference Room J, 6130 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Contact Person: Wilna Woods, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Executive Plaza 
North, Room 622B, 6130 Executive Boulevard, MSC 7410, Bethesda, MD 
20892-7410, Telephone: 301/496-7903.
    Purpose/Agenda: To evaluate and review responses to Requests for 
Proposals.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Proposals and the discussions could reveal confidential trade 
secrets or commercial property such as patentable material and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Numbers: 93.393, 
Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and 
Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, 
Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cnacer Centers Support; 93.398, 
Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control)

    Dated: September 4, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-23894 Filed 9-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Exhibit 31.01

CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Robert Klein, President and Chief Executive Officer of Golden Spirit Mining
Ltd. a Delaware Corporation (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 302 of
the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1.      I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period
ended March 31, 2005 of Golden Spirit Mining Ltd.;

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 annual
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 quarterly report;

4.      The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a - 14 and 15d - 14) for the registrant and we 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

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

5.      The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit
committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent function):

        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; and

6.      The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 20, 2005


  /s/ Robert Klein
---------------
   Robert Klein
   President and Chief Executive Officer