alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 99-622 

________________________________________________________________________ 

SCIENTIFIC COOPERATION 

 Agreements Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and CHILE Extending the 

Agreement of May 14, 1992

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Washington May 5 and June 22, 1999 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Santiago January 4 and 28, 2005 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Santiago June 27 and 28, 2006 

Effected by Exchange of Notes at 

Santiago June 15 and 29, 2011 
 

NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 

 CHILE 

 Scientific Cooperation 

Agreements extending the agreement of May 14, 1992. 

Effected by exchange of notes at Washington 

 May 5 and June 22, 1999; 

Entered into force June 22, 1999. 

Effected by exchange of notes at Santiago 

 January 4 and 28, 2005; 

Entered into force January 28, 2005. 

Effected by exchange of notes at Santiago 

 June 27 and 28, 2006; 

Entered into force June 30, 2006. 

Effected by exchange of notes at Santiago 

 June 15 and 29, 2011; 

Entered into force June 30, 2011. 






NOTE: This is an unofficial translation provided by the Government of Chile. When the official English translation becomes available, it will be added to this publication.


NOTE: This is an unofficial translation provided by the Government of Chile. When the official English translation becomes available, it will be added to this publication.
#### Ex parte Thad WILLIAMS, alias.

SC 2660.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 26, 1977.

BEATTY, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, FAULKNER and SHORES, JJ., concur.
#### In re Luis Diaz GUTIERREZ v. STATE of Alabama. Ex parte Luis Diaz Gutierrez.

SC 2493.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 12, 1977.

James R. Foley of Lutz, Fay & Foley, Huntsville, for petitioner.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen. and Jane LeCroy Robbins, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

EMBRY, Justice.

This case comes to us by writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals, 348 So.2d 1074. The writ was granted to review an allegedly material question of first impression (Rule 39(c)(3), ARAP):

> “ * * * whether the appellate court erred in holding that there was no evidence that your Petitioner failed to enter his guilty pleas voluntarily and understandingly.”

Petitioner, Gutierrez, was indicted separately for robbery and rape. He pleaded not guilty to each indictment and by consent the cases were tried jointly on pleas of not guilty. During the course of the trial he withdrew his not guilty pleas and entered guilty pleas. The trial court discharged the trial jury and several days later fixed punishment. Gutierrez, on appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, contended that his guilty pleas were the product of improper inducement and of coercion. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed on that point. He urges the same point here; we approve the decision of the appeals court on that point and affirm as to it.

That court went on to hold that under Tit. 15, § 277, Code, the trial court could not fix punishment without the intervention of a jury, except on arraignment or before trial, but that remand for sentencing by another jury was an alternative to reversal. We do not reach this issue as it was not raised in the petition before us.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, MADDOX, FAULKNER, JONES, ALMON and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 187 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 50564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25617]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3888-000]


The Green Power Connection, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

September 23, 1997.
    The Green Power Connection, Inc. (Green Power) submitted for filing 
a rate schedule under which Green Power will engage in wholesale 
electric power and energy transactions as a marketer. Green Power also 
requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, 
Green Power requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 
18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability by Green Power.
    On September 8, 1997, pursuant to delegated authority, the 
Director, Division of Rate Applications, Office of Electric Power 
Regulation, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, 
subject to the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Green Power should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 
211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Green Power is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, endorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Green Power's issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is October 8, 1997. Copies 
of the full text of the order are available from the Commission's 
Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25617 Filed 9-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

:

v. : No. 4:CR-96-239

:

DAVID PAUL HAMMER : (Judge Muir)

 ORDER

 January 4, 2006

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

A review of our opinion of December 27, 2005, reveals a

typographical error. The purpose of this order is to correct that

error. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

On page 261, second full paragraph, the portion of the

sentence

Mr. Hammer’s admissions during the change of plea proceeding

that he had put Mr. Hammer in a sleeper hold, rendered him

unconscious and had then taken a piece of cloth and

strangled him.

is amended to read

Mr. Hammer’s admissions during the change of plea proceeding

that he had put Mr. Marti in a sleeper hold rendered him

unconscious and had then taken a piece of cloth and

strangled him.

 s/Malcolm Muir 

MUIR, U.S. District Judge

MM:gs

Case 4:96-cr-00239-JHS Document 1220 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 1
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2154 

To provide for the issuance of a commemorative postage stamp in honor 

of Rosa Parks. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 20, 2005 

Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. KERRY, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. 

WYDEN, Ms. MIKULSKI, and Mr. DURBIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide for the issuance of a commemorative postage 

stamp in honor of Rosa Parks. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ROSA PARKS COMMEMORATIVE POSTAGE 

4 STAMP. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Postmaster General shall 

6 issue a commemorative postage stamp in honor of Rosa 

7 Parks. 

8 (b) DENOMINATION AND DESIGN.—The commemora9 tive postage stamp issued under this Act shall— 
2 

•S 2154 IS

1 (1) be issued in the denomination used for 1st 

2 class mail up to 1 ounce in weight; and 

3 (2) bear such designs as the Postmaster Gen4 eral shall determine. 

5 (c) ISSUANCE PERIOD.—The commemorative postage 

6 stamp issued under this Act shall— 

7 (1) be placed on sale as soon as practicable 

8 after the date of the enactment of this Act; and 

9 (2) be sold for such period thereafter as the 

10 Postmaster General shall determine. 

Æ
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 8, 2014

NO. 03-13-00351-CR

Julious Lamar Clay, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TOM GREEN COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ briefs, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the trial 

court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of conviction. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
PRIVATE LAW 105–5—NOV. 10, 1998

Private Law 105–5

105th Congress

An Act

For the relief of Heraclio Tolley.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. IMMEDIATE RELATIVE STATUS FOR HERACLIO TOLLEY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Heraclio Tolley shall be classified as a child

under section 101(b)(1)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act

for purposes of approval of a relative visa petition filed under

section 204 of such Act by his adoptive parent and the filing

of an application for an immigrant visa or adjustment of status.

(b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Heraclio Tolley enters the

United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection

(c), he shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully

and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status

under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of

the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.— Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the petition and the

application for issuance of an immigrant visa or the application

for adjustment of status are filed with appropriate fees within

2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Heraclio Tolley,

the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce

by 1, for the current or next following fiscal year, the worldwide

level of family-sponsored immigrants under section 201(c)(1)(A) of

the Immigration and Nationality Act.

(e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION TREATMENT FOR

CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural parents, brothers, and sisters

of Heraclio Tolley shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be

accorded any right, privilege, or status under the Immigration

and Nationality Act.

Approved November 10, 1998.

Nov. 10, 1998

[H.R. 378]
#### BET CONSTRUCTION, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 2661.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 11, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### SANDS CONSTRUCTION CO., Inc. v. Roland L. RAINVILLE, et al.

No. 39141.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

### **CONSENTOF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporationby reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-3 Nos. 333-91548,333-64732, and 333-60076) and in the related Prospectus and the RegistrationStatements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-91544, 333-64166, 333-90489, and 333-42803) ofVCampus Corporation of our report dated March 14, 2003, except for Note 17, asto which the date is March 28, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of VCampus Corporation included in the Annual Report onForm 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.

 
| /s/ ERNST & YOUNG  LLP |
|----------------------------|

McLean, Virginia

March 28, 2003

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       3,527,565
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             7,436,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 18,834,981
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      18,834,981
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        18,834,981
<LOANS>                                     44,648,905
<ALLOWANCE>                                    696,679
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              79,356,319
<DEPOSITS>                                  72,414,499
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            291,043
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,336,912
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,313,865
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              79,356,319
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              4,107,629
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,004,953
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               256,095
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             5,368,677
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,425,432
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,428,357
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,940,320
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  235,500
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              (2,774)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,197,740
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                960,880
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   621,998
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.03
<LOANS-NON>                                    213,887
<LOANS-PAST>                                    24,014
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              1,234,024
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               459,383
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    4,373
<RECOVERIES>                                     6,170
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              696,679
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           185,104
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        511,575


</TABLE>
-79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 37

 38

 39

★

▲ ▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

08/25

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 25 Aug 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.81 N 76.74 W Meters AGL
Denied and Opinion Filed November 26, 2018 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-18-01346-CV IN RE JULES DYLAN STUER, Relator Original Proceeding from the 255th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-17-05507 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Boatright Opinion by Justice Bridges Before the Court is relator’s petition for writ of mandamus in which he complains of a contempt order rendered against him for failure to pay amicus f ees. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clear ly abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). As the party seeking relief, the relator ha s the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to man damus relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Rules 52.3 and 52.7 require the relator to provide “a certified or sworn c opy” of certain documents, inclu ding any order complained of, any other document showing the matter complained of, and every docu ment that is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any underlying pro ceeding. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1).–2– Here, the mandamus record does not include a certified or sworn copy of the order complained of, all pleadings related to that order, or a hearin g transcript. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(k)(1)(a), 52.7(a). Based on the record before us, we conc lude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, we deny relator ’s petition for writ of mandamus. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the court deter mines relator is not entitled to the r elief sought).

181346F.P05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE
#### A. D. BARNES and Zorado H. Barnes v. R. B. KENT.

SC 2440.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 30, 1977.

J. A. Hornsby, Gadsden, for appellants.

Barry McCrary of Dixon, Wooten, Boyett, McCrary & Thornton, Talladega, for appel-lee.

ALMON, Justice.

Appellants brought this action seeking relief under Rule 60(b) ARCP, requesting that the court set aside a judgment rendered between the same parties in a former suit. After hearing testimony, the trial court denied the relief sought. We affirm.

The former suit was over the right of access to certain real property. Appellants’ *438lost and appealed to this court. That judgment, which is the one here in controversy, was affirmed by this court in *Barnes v. Kent,*292 Ala. 508, 296 So.2d 881 (1974).

The sole contention of appellants is that they were denied due process of law because they did not testify at the former trial. They assert that had they testified at the first trial, there would have been ample evidence to contradict appellee’s witnesses. In *Barnes v. Kent,*supra, this court observed:

> “While the appellants offered no witnesses in the hearing below, they were offered a full opportunity to do so. . . ”

So far as we can ascertain, appellants’ dissatisfaction stems from their attorney’s tactics at the first trial. They are represented by different counsel on this appeal. Nevertheless, the appellants were bound by the previous judgment. *McGruder v. B & L Construction Company, Inc.,*331 So.2d 257 (Ala.1976). There is no evidence in the record to support relief under Rule 60(b).

The judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, JONES and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
#### FORT PIERCE GAS COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Benjamin TOOMBS, Reginald Toombs, a minor, by his father and next friend, Benjamin Toombs, Emmitt Toombs, a minor, by his father and next friend, Benjamin Toombs, Sally M. Toombs, Eloise Crutchfield, Gary Carrithers, a minor, by his mother and next friend, Eloise Crutchfield, Eldora Crutchfield, and Maddox Foundry & Machine Works, Inc., Appellees.

No. 73.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Aug. 26, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24540]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[ID-957-1430-00]


Idaho: Filing of Plats of Survey; Idaho

    The plat of the following described land was officially filed in 
the Idaho State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Boise, Idaho, 
effective 9 a.m., September 4, 1997.
    The plat representing the dependent resurvey of the 1960 fixed and 
limiting boundary in section 15, T. 3 N., R. 41 E., Boise Meridian, 
Idaho, Group 941, was accepted, September 4, 1997.
    This survey was executed to meet certain administrative needs of 
the Bureau of Land Management.
    All inquiries concerning the survey of the above described land 
must be sent to the Chief, Cadastral Survey, Idaho State Office, Bureau 
of Land Management, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709-1657.

    Dated: September 4, 1997.
Duane E. Olsen,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho.
[FR Doc. 97-24540 Filed 9-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-M
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 98-514 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Research and Development 

 Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and the NETHERLANDS 

Signed at Washington May 14, 1998 

 with 

Annex 

and 

Agreement Amending the 

Memorandum of Understanding 

Signed at The Hague and Washington 

August 21 and September 26, 2007 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
NETHERLANDS 

Defense: Research and Development 

 Memorandum of understanding signed 

 at Washington May 14, 1998; 

 Entered into force May 14, 1998. 

 With annex. 

 And agreement amending the 

 memorandum of understanding. 

 Signed at The Hague and Washington 

 August 21 and September 26, 2007; 

 Entered into force September 26, 2007. 

 

NOTE: After Article XI, the page numbers listed in the Table of Contents are incorrect.





























NOTE: The page numbers listed in this Table of Contents are incorrect.