alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-20-00048-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

EX PARTE EDWARD OCHOA

On appeal from the 275th District Court

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

ORDER ABATING APPEAL

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa

Order Per Curiam

Appellant, Edward Ochoa, filed a notice of appeal with this Court from the trial 

court’s order denying the relief requested in his application for writ of habeas corpus. 

The record currently before the Court fails to include a certification of appellant’s right to 

appeal. The Clerk of the Court has requested the trial court’s certification of the 

appellant’s right to appeal from the district clerk’s office. To date, this clerk has been 

unwilling or unable to satisfy the request. Accordingly, this matter is ABATED and 
2

REMANDED to the trial court for entry of a certification of the appellant’s right to appeal. 

On remand, the trial court shall issue notice of a hearing and accordingly conduct a 

hearing addressing the foregoing matter. We further direct that, after conducting the 

hearing, the trial court certify whether appellant has the right of appeal. The trial court's 

certification, and any orders it enters, shall be included in a supplemental clerk's record. 

The trial court is directed to determine: (1) whether appellant has been denied 

effective assistance of counsel, and (2) whether appellant is indigent and entitled to 

court-appointed counsel. If the trial court determines appellant is indigent and entitled to 

court-appointed counsel, the trial court shall appoint new counsel to represent appellant 

in this appeal. If new counsel is appointed, the name, address, email address, telephone 

number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in an order appointing 

counsel.

The trial court is directed to cause the supplemental clerk's record to be filed with 

the Clerk of this Court within sixty days of the date of this order. Should the trial court 

require more time to comply with the directions of this Court, it shall request an extension 

prior to the expiration of this deadline.

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

6th day of April, 2020.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 110-111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34187]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[UT-069-08-1220-00]


Notice of Recreation Use Restrictions for Indian Creek Canyon 
Corridor

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of recreation use restrictions for Indian Creek Canyon 
Corridor.

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

SUMMARY: This notice places restrictions on recreation and vehicle use 
of the Indian Creek Canyon Corridor and adjacent canyons in the San 
Juan Resource Area in southeast Utah. Actions are implemented under the 
authority of 43 CFR 8341, 8364, 8365, and 8372.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robin Fehlau, San Juan Resource Area, 
P.O. Box 7, Monticello, Utah 84535 at (435) 587-2141.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Increased recreation use of certain public 
lands in the Indian Creek Canyon Corridor has adversely impacted 
riparian areas, vegetation, soil, visual, and cultural resources and 
poses a threat to public safety and enjoyment of these lands. Maps of 
the areas where these special rules and restrictions apply will be 
available at the San Juan Resource Area Office.
    To reduce damage to natural and cultural resource values and 
provide for public safety in the Indian Creek Canyon Corridor including 
Lavender Canyon, Davis Canyon, Harts Draw, Lockhart Basin, and Lockhart 
Canyon: (1) Motor vehicle and mountain bike travel is restricted to 
existing roads and trails and indiscriminate damage by off highway 
vehicle play will be rehabilitated; (2) camping is restricted to either 
improved recreation sites with facilities for overnight use or 
designated undeveloped campsites; (3) campsite occupancy may be limited 
to posted numbers of vehicles and persons, (4) woodgathering within one 
half mile of a motorized route will be prohibited, (5) campfires within 
one half mile of a motorized route may only be built in BLM constructed 
fire rings, designated fire rings or fire pans.

EFFECTIVE DATES: These restrictions are effective as of this date and 
shall remain in effect pending the completion of the Indian Creek 
Canyon Corridor Recreation Plan or until updated by the authorized 
officer.


[[Page 111]]


    Dated: December 16, 1997.
Kent Walter,
Area Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-34187 Filed 12-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DQ-P
#### DAPHINE STERLING ETHERIDGE v. UNION NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 60655.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 19, 1978.

JOINT MOTION AND ORDER

On joint motion of Daphine Sterling Eth-eridge, plaintiff-applicant, and Union National Life Insurance Company, defendant-respondent, and on suggesting to the Court that this matter has been compromised and settled and that, therefore, plaintiff-applicant desires to dismiss her suit, with prejudice.

ORDER

Considering the foregoing joint motion;

IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff-applicant’s, Daphine Sterling Etheridge, suit be dismissed with prejudice.

JOE W. SANDERS, Chief Justice.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7322 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7322

 To prohibit certain individuals from being appointed to positions if 
the individual worked, as part of that individual's employment with the 
   United States, on behalf of a special counsel investigation that 
 investigated or prosecuted a President or a candidate for election to 
                        the office of President.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 24, 2020

 Ms. Stefanik introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit certain individuals from being appointed to positions if 
the individual worked, as part of that individual's employment with the 
   United States, on behalf of a special counsel investigation that 
 investigated or prosecuted a President or a candidate for election to 
                        the office of President.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Restore Integrity of Special 
Prosecutors Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON APPOINTMENT OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WHO 
              INVESTIGATED OR PROSECUTED A PRESIDENT OR CANDIDATE FOR 
              ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT.

    (a) Definition.--The term ``special counsel investigation or 
prosecution'' means an investigation or prosecution conducted pursuant 
to part 600 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations.
    (b) Prohibition.--The President may not appoint any individual to a 
position that requires the advice and consent of the Senate if, during 
the 7-year period ending on the date of the nomination, the individual 
worked, as part of that individual's employment with the United States, 
on behalf of a special counsel investigation or prosecution, that 
investigated or prosecuted a President or a candidate for election to 
the office of President.
                                 <all>
```
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7322 

To prohibit certain individuals from being appointed to positions if the individual worked, as part of that individual’s employment with the United 

States, on behalf of a special counsel investigation that investigated 

or prosecuted a President or a candidate for election to the office of 

President. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 24, 2020 

Ms. STEFANIK introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To prohibit certain individuals from being appointed to positions if the individual worked, as part of that individual’s 

employment with the United States, on behalf of a special counsel investigation that investigated or prosecuted 

a President or a candidate for election to the office 

of President. 

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 ‘‘Restore Integrity of 

5 Special Prosecutors Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7322 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON APPOINTMENT OF CERTAIN INDI2 VIDUALS WHO INVESTIGATED OR PROS3 ECUTED A PRESIDENT OR CANDIDATE FOR 

4 ELECTION TO THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT. 

5 (a) DEFINITION.—The term ‘‘special counsel inves6 tigation or prosecution’’ means an investigation or pros7 ecution conducted pursuant to part 600 of title 28, Code 

8 of Federal Regulations. 

9 (b) PROHIBITION.—The President may not appoint 

10 any individual to a position that requires the advice and 

11 consent of the Senate if, during the 7-year period ending 

12 on the date of the nomination, the individual worked, as 

13 part of that individual’s employment with the United 

14 States, on behalf of a special counsel investigation or pros15 ecution, that investigated or prosecuted a President or a 

16 candidate for election to the office of President. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER (1)

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the following certification is being made to
accompany the Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
October 29, 2005:

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Del Global Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended October 29, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark
Koch, Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 that to my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
          as amended; and

     (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

                                          /s/ Mark Koch
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Name: Mark Koch
                                          Title: Principal Accounting Officer
                                          Date: December 13, 2005

(1)  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
     been provided to Del Global Technologies Corp and will be retained by Del
     Global Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
     Commission or its staff upon request.

     The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
     Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
     disclosure document.


                                       32
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from
financial  statements for the three month period ended August 31, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000027850
<NAME>                        MARITIME TRANSPORT & TECHNOLOGY, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     $
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              May-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 Jun-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   Aug-31-1997
<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>                                  .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .00
        



</TABLE>
#### Lawrence A. NEALY, Appellant, v. James ROSS and Fincher Motors, Inc., Appellees.

No. 70-1217.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 22, 1971.

Rehearing Denied July 9, 1971.

*523Harold A. Turtletaub, Miami, for appellant.

High, Stack, Davis & Lazenby, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., HENDRY, J., and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge.

SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff in the court below from a final summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Fincher Motors, Inc.

The complaint sought to charge Fincher Motors, Inc., with vicarious liability, as the owner of the automobile driven by the co-defendant James Ross, one of its employees, resulting in an accident, causing injury to the plaintiff.

The facts as disclosed by the uncontra-dicted deposition of Ross, show that Ross was employed by Fincher Motors, Inc., as a porter, although one of his duties was moving loaner automobiles in and about the premises of Fincher Motors, Inc., or from the street on to such premises. On the Saturday morning of the day in question, Ross showed up for work to perform his duties as porter at 8:00 a. m., but the shop was not open for business. Someone brought in a loaner vehicle, leaving the keys in the car and Ross proceeded to take the car to pick up a sandwich, becoming involved in the accident on his return to the Fincher premises. Ross had no permission from anyone to use the car this particular morning, and in fact had long standing instructions over a period of ten years, never to take a car off the premises. Moreover, he had lost his driver’s license many years before, and it had not been restored.

Appellant contends that, notwithstanding, a jury could infer that Ross had implied consent within the meaning of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida in Thomas v. Atlantic Associates, Inc., (1969), 226 So.2d 100, holding that the term “implied permission” can only be negated upon a breach of custody amounting to a species of conversion or theft. However, a “species of conversion” does not necessarily require a total deprivation of ownership or possession, but would include a temporary appropriation of possession without the express or implied consent of the owner. On its facts this case is controlled by Sykes v. Babijuice Corp., 63 So.2d 65, (Supreme Court of Florida, 1963), and our holding in Ivey v. National Fisheries, Inc., (1968), 215 So.2d 74, where we said:

> “Unauthorized use of an auto has been held to include those situations wherein the employer’s permission to use the vehicle extended only to the immediate business premises and the tort occurred outside this boundary. Therefore, that fact served to preclude the employer’s liability. Sykes v. Babijuice Corp., Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 65; Keller v. Florida Power & Light Co., Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 775.”

*524We agree with the trial judge that a jury could not infer implied permission or a species of conversion from the facts in this case.

The remaining assignments of error have been examined and found to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
EX-4.2



 Exhibit 4.2 
  

			
		  	

  
 



 








			
	State Street Corporation (the “Company”) will furnish without charge, to each shareholder who so requests, a summary of the powers, designations, preferences and
relative, participating, optional or other special rights of each class of stock of the Company and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences and rights, and the variations in rights, preferences and limitations determined
for each series, which are fixed by the Articles of Organization of the Company, as amended, and the resolutions of the Board of Directors of the Company, and the authority of the Board of Directors to determine variations for future series. Such
requests may be made to the office of the Secretary of the Company or to the transfer agent. The Board of Directors may require the owner of a lost or destroyed stock certificate, or his legal representatives, to give the Company a bond to indemnity
it and its transfer agents and registrars against any claim that may be made against them on account of the alleged loss or destruction of any such certificate. The securities represented by this instrument are not savings accounts, deposits or
other obligations of a bank and are not insured by the federal deposit insurance corporation or any other governmental agency. The Company has more .than one class of stock authorized to be issued. The Company will furnish without charge to each
stockholder upon written request a copy of the full text of the preferences, voting powers, qualifications and special and relative rights of the shares of each class of stock (and any series thereof) authorized to be issued by the Company as set
forth in the Articles of Organization of the Company and amendments thereto as filed with the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
#### DAN GRAVES MASONRY, INC., Appellant, v. Andrew J. BARKSDALE, Jr., Appellee.

No. 71-173.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 17, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 705 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 705

     To authorize the Administrator of the Transportation Security 
       Administration to utilize the security service fee to pay 
      Transportation Security officer salaries during a lapse in 
appropriations for the Transportation Security Administration, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 22, 2019

 Mr. Katko (for himself, Mr. Brindisi, Mr. Van Drew, Ms. Stefanik, and 
 Mr. Stivers) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To authorize the Administrator of the Transportation Security 
       Administration to utilize the security service fee to pay 
      Transportation Security officer salaries during a lapse in 
appropriations for the Transportation Security Administration, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Pay Our TSA Screeners Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. USE OF SECURITY SERVICE FEE TO PAY SALARIES OF TRANSPORTATION 
              SECURITY OFFICERS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
including section 44940 of title 49, United States Code, during any 
lapse in appropriations with respect to the Transportation Security 
Administration, the Administrator of the Transportation Security 
Administration is authorized to utilize amounts payable to the 
Administrator pursuant to the security service fee under such section 
to pay Transportation Security officer salaries to ensure effective 
continuity of security operations at airports.
    (b) Notification to Congress.--If the Administrator of the 
Transportation Security Administration exercises the authority provided 
under subsection (a), the Administrator shall notify the Committee on 
Homeland Security and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate of 
such exercise.
    (c) Termination.--The authority provided under subsection (a) 
terminates, with respect to any lapse in appropriations with respect to 
the Transportation Security Administration, on the date of the 
enactment of any Act making appropriations for the Transportation 
Security Administration.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1
  SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION*
 (Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer)
  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of QSGI INC., hereby certify, to such officers’ knowledge, that:
  (1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of QSGI INC. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30, 2008 (the “Report”) fully complies with the with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: March 19, 2012

/s/ Marc ShermanMarc Sherman

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
 
 __________________
 * The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.