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

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-21-00068-CR

EX PARTE HEATHER MARIE RYAN

From the 443rd District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 21-015

A B A T E M E N T ORDER

Appellant Heather Marie Ryan appeals the trial court’s order denying her request 

for a reduction in bail. By letter dated August 2, 2021, the Court directed Appellant to 

file a brief within ten (10) days. Appellant was admonished that a failure to timely 

comply would result in the case being abated to the trial court to conduct a hearing to 

determine why no brief has been filed and whether she still desired to prosecute this 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2). More than ten (10) days have passed, and Appellant 

has not filed a brief or otherwise responded.

It is therefore ordered that this appeal is abated to the 443rd Judicial District Court 

in Ellis County, Texas for the trial court to hold a hearing pursuant to Rule 38.8(b)(2). The 

trial court shall hold the hearing within twenty (20) days. The court reporter shall 
Ex Parte Ryan Page 2

complete and file a record with this Court within ten (10) days after the hearing 

concludes.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray and

Justice Johnson

Appeal abated

Order delivered and filed August 18, 2021
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 25 (Thursday, February 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2937]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation Policy; Proposed 
Subsequent Arrangement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Subsequent arrangement.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 2160), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
``subsequent arrangement'' under the Agreement for Cooperation in the 
Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy between the United States of America 
and the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM) and the Agreement 
for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America 
and the Government of Norway concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear 
Energy.
    The subsequent arrangement to be carried out under the above-
mentioned agreements involves approval of the following retransfer: 
RTD/EU(NO)-44, for the transfer from the Halden reactor in Norway of 
five irradiated fuel rods containing 1,184 grams of uranium, including 
3.0 grams of the isotope U-235 (0.25% enrichment) and 12.0 grams of 
plutonium, to Studsvik AB in Sweden for the purpose of re-irradiation 
and post irradiation examination.
    In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement will 
not be inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner that fifteen 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

    Dated: January 28, 1997.

    For the Department of Energy.
Cherie Fitzgerald,
Director, International Policy and Analysis Division, Office of Arms 
Control and Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 97-2937 Filed 2-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed April

18 , 2024.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 23

- 00469

- CV

IN RE Z.Q. , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 315th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 86707



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On Wednesday, July 5, 2023 , relator Z.Q. filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable Leah Shapiro
, presiding judge of the 315th District Court of Harris County (1) to rule on a “motion for a merits ruling on an application for writ of habeas corpus”; and (2)2

to rule on a motion for a hearing “in order to fully develop the facts and arguments necessary to make a ruling on the constitutional claims.”

Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, w e deny relator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus

.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Wise
, Poissant, and Wilson

.
# L_2005227EN.01000301.xml

| 2.9.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 227/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 227/3

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1435/2005

of 1 September 2005

on the issue of system B export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector (table grapes)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001 of 8 October 2001 on detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds on fruit and vegetables (2), and in particular Article 6(6) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2005 (3) fixes the indicative quantities for which system B export licences may be issued. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2005 (3) fixes the indicative quantities for which system B export licences may be issued.

| (2) | In the light of the information available to the Commission today, there is a risk that the indicative quantities laid down for the current export period for table grapes will shortly be exceeded. This overrun will prejudice the proper working of the export refund scheme in the fruit and vegetables sector. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In the light of the information available to the Commission today, there is a risk that the indicative quantities laid down for the current export period for table grapes will shortly be exceeded. This overrun will prejudice the proper working of the export refund scheme in the fruit and vegetables sector.

| (3) | To avoid this situation, applications for system B licences for table grapes after 2 September 2005 should be rejected until the end of the current export period, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

To avoid this situation, applications for system B licences for table grapes after 2 September 2005 should be rejected until the end of the current export period,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Applications for system B export licences for table grapes submitted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 951/2005, export declarations for which are accepted after 2 September and before 16 September 2005, are hereby rejected.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 2 September 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 1 September 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 47/2003 (OJ L 7, 11.1.2003, p. 64).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 268, 9.10.2001, p. 8. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 386/2005 (OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 3).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 160, 23.6.2005, p. 19. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1078/2005 (OJ L 177, 9.7.2005, p. 3).

3

---
Exhibit 31.5



Certification



I, Peter A. Cohen, certify that:



1.  I have reviewed this Amendment No. 2 on Form 10-K/A
of Cowen Group, Inc.; and



2.  Based on my knowledge, this 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.



Date: April 29, 2016



| | /s/ Peter A. Cohen           
| | -----------------------------
| | Peter A. Cohen               
| | Chief Executive Officer      
| | (principal executive officer)
**President**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Michael G. Clark, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Strategic Municipal Income Trust, on Form N-CSR; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSR (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or §15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

| January 28, 2009 | /s/Michael G. Clark                  |
|------------------|--------------------------------------|
|             | Michael G. Clark                     |
|             | President                            |
|             | DWS Strategic Municipal Income Trust |

 

 

 

 

 

**Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer**

**Section 906 Certification under Sarbanes Oxley Act**

 

 

 

I, Paul Schubert, certify that: 

 

| 1. | I have reviewed this report, filed on behalf of DWS Strategic Municipal Income Trust, on Form N-CSR; |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| 2. | Based on my knowledge and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the periodic report on Form N-CSR (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of § 13 (a) or § 15 (d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| January 28, 2009 | /s/Paul Schubert                      |
|------------------|---------------------------------------|
|             | Paul Schubert                         |
|             | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
|             | DWS Strategic Municipal Income Trust  |
Fact Sheet

Innovative Policy on Fighting 

Fraud and Corruption underscores 

Commitment to Anti‐Corruption Efforts 

As part of its ongoing focus on anticorruption efforts, the U.S. 

Government’s Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) has published 

and made public its policy focusing on the prevention, detection, and 

remediation of corruption and/or fraud in MCC’s programs and projects 

in its 35 partner countries. 

Control of corruption is one of the eligibility indicators that a country 

must meet before becoming eligible for an MCC-funded compact. In partnership with MCC, countries like, Paraguay, Malawi, and Zambia continue 

to respond to the call to control corruption in their countries by enacting 

stronger anticorruption laws, strengthening oversight institutions, opening 

up the public policy-making process to greater scrutiny, and increasing 

investigations and prosecutions focused on corruption offenses. 

MCC’s anti-corruption policy aims to: 

 Bolster the risk detection and management capacity of Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) implementing entities to identify corruption and/or fraud in MCC-funded programs and projects,

 Achieve greater consistency across MCC and MCA teams in their approaches to the prevention of 

fraud and corruption;

 Ensure corruption allegations are consistently addressed internally at MCC and referred to the Office of the 

Inspector General for investigation. 

Among MCC’s 17 eligibility indicators, countries must pass corruption to be eligible for MCC compact 

funds. MCC’s threshold program has invested more than half of its funding—about $250 million—in 

March 18, 2009 | www.mcc.gov

MCC’s 

anticorruption 

policy is part of 

MCC’s wider and 

ongoing efforts 

to support 

partner countries 

worldwide in 

their anticorruption 

campaigns. 
Innovative Policy on Fighting Fraud and Corruption underscores Commitment to Anti‐Corruption Efforts , March 18, 2009 2

programs to strengthen anticorruption laws and procedures, making MCC among the largest funders of anticorruption activities. 

To read the MCC Policy for the Prevention, Detection, and Remediation of Fraud and Corruption and to learn more 

about how MCC is helping fight corruption around the world, please visit www.mcc.gov. 

# # #

Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), a United States government agency designed to work with developing 

countries, is based on the principle that aid is most effective when it reinforces good governance, economic freedom, 

and investments in people that promote economic growth and elimination of poverty. 

For more information visit www.mcc.gov.
Opinion issued February 10, 2022

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01 - 21 - 00380 - CV

——————————— ALISSA CATHERINE ALLEN , Appella nt

V. HOUSTON HOUSE HI RISE , Appell e e
O n Appeal fro m the Co unty Civil C our t at Law No . 1

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Ca se No. 1169929
MEMORANDU M OPINION Appellant , Alissa Catherine Allen , ha s failed to timely file a brief. S ee T EX . R. A PP . P. 38. 6 (a), 38 .8( a). After being notified that this appeal was sub j ect to dismiss al, appellant did not a dequately respond. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(b ) , (c)

.2

We dismiss the app eal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a bri ef

. See T EX . R. A P P . P
. 38.8(a), 42 .3 ( b ) , (c) , 43.2(f)

. We dismiss any pendin g motio ns as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Hightower, C ounti ss , and Guerra

.
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-41543 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant,

versus JESSIE WADE HALE, Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:97-CR-42-3

- - - - - - - - - - March 11, 1999 Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appellant Jessie Wade Hale appeals his sentence for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine arguing that the district court erred by attributing 764.45 grams to him when determining his offense level. The Government appeals the district court’s failure to sentence Hale as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. We have reviewed the record and briefs submitted by the parties and hold that the district court erred in determiningNo. 97-41543 -2- that Hale’s two prior felony convictions were related, and thus, holding that Hale was not subject to the career offender guideline. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) & comment.(n.3); see also United States v. Ford , 996 F.2d 83, 85 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Garcia , 962 F.2d 479, 482 (5th Cir. 1992). Any error with regard to the district court’s inclusion of the 764.45 grams of methamphetamine in Hale’s offense level is harmless inasmuch as it would not affect Hale’s sentence as a career offender pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Accordingly, we VACATE Hale’s sentence and REMAND for resentencing. VACATED AND REMANDED.
MATS Response to Comments documents 

 12/09/2011 04:47 PM 

From: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US 

 

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov 

 

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cortney -- 

Attached are the Response to Comments documents. 

Thank you. 

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt 

Bill Maxwell 

Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Phone: 919-541-5430 

FAX: 919-541-5450 

EGU_NSPS_Amend_Comment _Response 9 December 2011 to OMB.docx 

MATS RTC Chapters Foreword-1-2-3-4_120911.docx 

 

MATS RTC Chapters 5-6-7-8-9-10-App A-B_120911.docx
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Notices 55605

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 98–01]

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense

Security Assistance Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is

publishing the unclassified test of a

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification.

This is published to fulfill the

requirements of section 155 of P.L. 104–

164 dated 21 July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. J. Hurd, DSAA/COMPT/RM, (703)

604–6575.

The following is a copy of a letter to

the Speaker of the House of

Representatives, Transmittal 98–01,

with attached transmittal and policy

justification.

Dated: October 20, 1997.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

BILLING CODE 5000–04–M
55606 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Notices
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Notices 55607
55608 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 207 / Monday, October 27, 1997 / Notices

[FR Doc. 97–28354 Filed 10–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–C
EXHIBIT 23CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form No. S-8(Nos. 333-106542, 333-89942, 333-72796, 333-64667 and 333-29945) of ESS Technology, Inc., of ourreport dated March 16, 2007 related to the consolidated financial statements financial statementschedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingand the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in ESSTechnology’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006./S/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
### SERVED: September29, 2014 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF 

### ChristopherMcCann DOCKETNO. FAA 2014-0405 (Civil Penalty Action). 

### ORDERON SHOW CAUSE And . i '



### ORDERON COMPLAINT'SMOTION TO DISMISS RESPONDENT'S REQUEST FORHEARING AND COMPLAINANT'S MOTIONTO DEEM ALLEGATIONS ADMITTED.

The Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "Agency") filed a Motion for Judgment onthe Pleadings dated August 11, 2014. We issued a Show Cause Orderon August 26, 2014. ChristopherMcCann (hereinafter "Respondent") filed an Objection to Complainant's Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Deem Allegations Admitted or End Motion to Limit Issues at Hearing to Sanctions dated September 11, 2014. Respondent also filed a copy ofhis Request for Hearing dated June 15, 2014. We will treat Respondent's submissions as responses to our Orderto Show Cause. WHEREFORE, it be and is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. Our Orderto Show Cause be and is hereby vacated; and 2. Respondent's submissions be and are hereby received; and 3. FAA's Motions to Dismiss Request for Hearing and Motionto Deem Allegations admitted be and are hereby DENIED; and 4. This matterwill be set for hearing. We do not anticipate hearing this case until early 2015.

·::.•;,1...... ' i

. '• /1 ,,;'(,,(4,. '! Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY
Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1 000 1

Christopher McCann, Respondent 109 4111 Avenue North Sartell, MN 56377 BrianaMartino, Complainant's Counsel Federal Aviation Administration Regional Counsel (AGL-7) 2300 East Devon Avenue Des Plaines, IL 60018 TEL: 847-294-7313 FAX: 847-294-7498 ONE COPY

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue; S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 DocketNo. FAA-2014-0405 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WIOOO, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 36

 38

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲

▲

▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 1000

18 12 06 00

06/01

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Jun 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.41 N 76.30 W Meters AGL
Exhibit 23

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Actel Corporation of our report dated January 21, 2004,  included in the 2003
Annual Report to Shareholders of Actel Corporation.

Our audits also included the financial  statement  schedule of Actel Corporation
listed in Item 14(a) of this Annual  Report  (Form 10-K).  This  schedule is the
responsibility of the Company's management.  Our responsibility is to express an
opinion based on our audits. In our opinion,  the financial  statement  schedule
referred to above, when considered in relation to the basic financial statements
taken as a whole,  presents fairly in all material  respects the information set
forth therein.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-112215,  33-74492, 333-3398, 333-71627, 333-36222, 333-43274,
333-54652,  and 333-81926) of our report dated January 21, 2004, with respect to
the  consolidated  financial  statements of Actel  Corporation  incorporated  by
reference in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003,
and our report included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial
statement  schedule  included  in  this  Annual  Report  (Form  10-K)  of  Actel
Corporation




San Jose, California
March 16, 2004
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00315-CR

Edward L. BELL,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010CR7254

Honorable Raymond Angelini, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 29, 2011

DISMISSED

The trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a 

plea-bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). 

Rule 25.2(d) provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant 

has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” TEX. R. APP. P. 

25.2(d). Accordingly, on May 16, 2011, this court issued an order stating this appeal would be 

dismissed pursuant to Rule 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification that shows 
04-11-00315-CR

- 2 -

defendant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record. See Daniels v. State,110 

S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, order); TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); 37.1. No amended 

trial court certification has been filed; therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish