alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 1, 2014

NO. 03-13-00820-CV

City of El Paso, Texas, Appellant

v.

Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas and Stephanie Townsend Allala, Appellees

APPEAL FROM 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND ROSE 

REVERSED AND RENDERED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the order signed by the district court on December 2, 2013. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in 

the district court’s order. Therefore, the Court reverses the district court’s order denying the City 

of El Paso, Texas’s plea to the jurisdiction and renders judgment granting the plea; and 

dismissing Stephanie Townsend Allala’s claims for mandamus relief. The appellees shall pay all 

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. 97-31210 (Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus KELVIN M. JONES, also known as Kevin Maurice Jones, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 97-CR-43-ALL-B-M1

- - - - - - - - - - December 14, 1998 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Defendant-Appellant Kelvin M. Jones, a/k/a Kevin Maurice
Jon es, appeals his sentence, which was imposed following his guilty-plea conviction on three counts of distribution of cocaine
base. Jones argues that the district court erred in failing to
resentence him after it struck information in the presentence report that attributed an additional amount of cocaine base to him

as relevant conduct. As the amended amount of cocaine base attributed to Jones did not affect the applicable guideline range, however, any possible error was harmless.2

Jones also contends that the district court erred in increasing his criminal history score pursuant to U.S.S.G.
§§ 4A1.1(d) and (e). Jones states that he understood his plea agreement to have prohibited any increase in sentence. But, the plea agreement contains n o such prohibition; rather, it clearly indicates that Jones’s sentence would be dete rmined according to applicable sentencing guidelines. His argument has no merit. Finally, Jones asserts that one of his previous state convictions used to calculate his criminal hist ory category was subsequently overturned, insisting that we must remand this case
for resen tencing. Although Jones has submitted a document purporting to support his argume nt, we cannot consider evidence
that was not first submitted to the distr ict court. S ee Fed. R. App. P. 10(a). Without any cognizable supporting evidence, we must deny Jones’s argument.
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Forms S-3 (No. 333-177492 and No. 333-170591) and S-8 (No. 333-180046, No. 333-174283, No. 333-167360, No. 333-162785 and No. 333-187355) of Cowen Group, Inc. of our report dated March 28, 2013 relating to the financial statements of Starboard Value A LP which appears in this Form 10‐K/A - Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cowen Group, Inc.








/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


New York, New York


March 28, 2013
From: Petrolati, Victor

Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 8:29 AM

Subject: Comment Period for BCEPS PreAnalysis

All:

Per Buildings/General Counsel agreement, late comments for 1904

- AB57 BCEPS PreAnalysis will be

accepted until October 29. However, the co mment period extension notice will not be published in the

Federal Register.

Vic

Victor Petrolati

General Engineer

Office of Building Technologies (EE

- 2J)

Department of Energy

202

- 586

- 4549

victor.petrolati@ee.doe.gov
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 221 (Monday, November 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61421]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30087]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Revocation of License of Small Business Investment Company; 
Intercontinental Capital Funding Corp.

    Pursuant to the authority granted to the United States Small 
Business Administration by the Final Order of the United States 
District Court for the Southern District of New York, dated September 
17, 1997, the United States Small Business Administration hereby 
revokes the license of Intercontinental Capital Funding Corporation, a 
New York corporation, to function as a small business investment 
company under the Small Business Investment Company License No. 02/02-
5421 issued to Intercontinental Capital Funding Corporation on 
September 30, 1981 and said license is hereby declared null and void as 
of November 5, 1997.

United States Small Business Administration.

    Dated: November 5, 1997.
Don A. Christensen,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 97-30087 Filed 11-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30155]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals to Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or to Acquire Companies that are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company that engages either 
directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking 
activity that is listed in Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) 
or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to 
banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise 
noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than December 2, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Lois Berthaume, Vice President) 
104 Marietta Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
    1. Citizens Bancshares Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia; to acquire 
FSB Mortgage Services, Inc., Decatur, Georgia, and thereby engage in 
providing residential mortgage lending and mortgage brokering services, 
pursuant to Secs.  225.28(b)(1) & (2) of the Board's Regulation Y. This 
activity will be conducted throughout the state of Georgia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 12, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-30155 Filed 11-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas July 20, 2022 No. 04-19-00244-CR Christopher KINES , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 81st Judicial District Court, Wilson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16-07-153-CRW Honorable Lynn Ellison, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R This court’s opinion in this appeal issued on April 15, 2020. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused appellant’s petition for discretionary review, this court’s mandate issued on December 28, 2020. Appellant has filed a pro se motion requesting a copy of the reporter’s record for purposes of filing a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus. This court has no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC . art. 11.07; In re Coronado , 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding). Post-conviction writs of habeas corpus are to be filed in the trial court in which the conviction was obtained, and made returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC . art. 11.07. In order to obtain a free copy of the record, appellant would need to file a motion in the trial court in which the conviction was obtained and demonstrate that his claim is not frivolous and that the record is needed to decide the issues presented. See United States v. MacCollom , 426 U.S. 317, 326 (1976); Escobar v. State , 880 S.W.2d 782, 783 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, no pet.). Appellant’s motion is DENIED without prejudice to seeking relief in the proper court.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 20th day of July, 2022.___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-73-000]

Texas Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Request Under 
Blanket Authorization

November 13, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 6, 1997, Texas Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Texas Gas), P.O. Box 20008, Owensboro, Kentucky 42304, 
filed in Docket No. CP98-73-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205, 
and 157.211, of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act 
(18 CFR 157.205, 157.211) for authorization to operate an existing 
delivery point under Texas Gas's blanket certificate issued in Docket 
No. CP88-686-000 pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as 
more fully set forth in the request that is on file with the Commission 
and open to public inspection.
    Texas Gas proposes to operate an existing 3-inch delivery meter and 
related facilities that was originally constructed under the authority 
of Section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 to transport gas 
for Natural Gas of Kentucky, Inc. (NGKY). The facilities are located at 
mile 3+2750 on Texas Gas's Russellville Bowling Green 8-inch line in 
Logan County, Kentucky. Texas Gas states that because only 
interruptible transportation service is proposed to be provided to NGKY 
at this point, the proposal will have no significant effect on Texas 
Gas's peak day and annual deliveries, and service to NGKY through this 
point can be accomplished without detriment to Texas Gas's other 
customers.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-30310 Filed 11-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

JOSE SALVADOR HERNANDEZ

,

Appellant,

v.

ARLEON, LLC AND ISSE INVESTMENT

GROUP CORPORATION

,

Appelle e

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 21

- 00023

- CV

Appeal from the

171st th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

( TC # 2017 DCV 2709 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appell ant’ s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until July 9 , 2021 . NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

FILE THE APPELL ANT ’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ordered that the Hon. David Pierce , the Appellant’s attorney, prepare the

Appellant’s Brief and forward the same to this Court on or before July 9 , 2021

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of June , 2021

.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley , JJ.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

I, Scott Forbes, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Texas-New Mexico Power Company; 

 

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 tomake the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986] 

 

c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and as presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and; 

 

d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

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

 

Date: May 3, 2005
Exhibit 32.4





Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Accretive Health, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Christopher Ricaurte, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.




Date: April 29, 2016


/s/ Christopher Ricaurte


Christopher Ricaurte


Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial Officer)
* 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. 95-10393 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus CARY DEON MCGOWAN, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:89cr00203 - - - - - - - - - - February 29, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Cary Deon McGowan appeals from the district court's denial of his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The district court did not err by concluding that U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, comment. (n.1), amendment 484, was not applicable and by not conducting an evidentiary hearing on the matter. See United States v. Allison , 63 F.3d 350, 353 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 405 (1995). AFFIRMED.
* 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 lim ited circumstances set forth in 5 T H C IR

. R.

47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 97-11244

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

WILBERT NORWOOD STARKS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

GARY L JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas

(3:97-CV-1975-H)

July 16, 1998

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We granted Wilbert Norwood S tarks, Texas state prisoner

#388071, a certificate of appealability to appeal the district

court’s dismissal of his habeas corpus petition as barred by the

one-year statute of limitations provided in the Antiterrorism and-2-

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(1). See Starks v. Johnson

, No. 97- 11244, slip op. at 1

(Jan. 9, 1998 5th Cir.)

Starks argues that the district court erred in dismissing his

petition as time-barred because the pendency of his third state

habeas application tolled the one-year limitations period. Without

tolling, Starks had one year from April 24, 1996, the effective

date of AEDPA, to file a timely federal habeas p etition. S ee

United States v. Flores

, 135 F.3d 1000, 1005-6 (5th Cir. 1998).

The pendency of Starks’ third state habeas application may have

tolled the limitati ons period under § 2244(d)(1). S ee 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(d)(2). Even assuming that § 22 44(d)(2) tolled the

limitations period, however, the record is not sufficiently

factually developed to enable us to determine whether Starks’

petition was timely filed because it is not evident on the record

when Starks forwarded his § 2254 petition to prison officials for

mailing. S ee Houston v. Lack

, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988); Cooper v.

Brookshire , 70 F.3d 377, 378 (5th Cir. 1995).

The district court did not have the benefit of our decision in

Flores . It did not address whether the pendency of Starks’ third

state habeas application tolled the one-year statute of limitations

of § 2244(d)(1), and did no t address whether Starks’ federal

petition, which the district court received on August 12, 1997, was

delivere d to prison officials for mailing prior to that time.-3-

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment dismissing Starks’

§ 2254 application as time-barred is VACATED, and the case is

REMANDED fo r a determination of these issues and for further

proceedings if the court determines, on remand, that Starks’ § 2254

petition was timely.

VACATED AND REMANDED.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1782 

To amend the National Firearms Act to require that local chief law enforcement officers be notified of, and provided a 90-day period to deny, 

firearm transfers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 10, 2021 

Ms. WEXTON (for herself, Mr. BEYER, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Mr. CONNOLLY, Ms. NORTON, Mr. KHANNA, Mr. HASTINGS, Mr. NEGUSE, and 

Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the National Firearms Act to require that local 

chief law enforcement officers be notified of, and provided a 90-day period to deny, firearm transfers. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Empowering Law En5 forcement for Safer Firearm Transfers Act of 2021’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1782 IH

1 SEC. 2. NOTIFICATION OF LOCAL CHIEF LAW ENFORCE2 MENT OFFICER IN CASE OF FIREARM TRANS3 FER. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5812 of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘and (6)’’ and 

6 inserting ‘‘(6) the Secretary has notified the chief law en7 forcement officer of the jurisdiction in which the trans8 feree primarily resides that such application is pending, 

9 and such officer either (A) certifies that there is no objec10 tion to the transfer, or (B) does not, before the end of 

11 the 90-day period beginning on the date of such notifica12 tion, certify to the Secretary that (i) the transferee poses 

13 a danger to the transferee or others, or (ii) there is a rea14 sonable likelihood the transferee will use the firearm for 

15 unlawful purposes; and (7)’’. 

16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

17 this section shall apply with respect to applications filed 

18 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS