alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 03-14-00531-CR

DERRICK KUYKENDALL * IN THE COURT OF APPEALS Appellant *
VS. * OF THE THIRD * SUPREME JUDICIAL * DISTRICT OF TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS * Appellee * AT AUSTIN TEXAS

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

APPELLATE BRIEF
TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS: COMES NOW, Appellant, and files this Motion for an Extension in which to file the Appellant’s Brief. In support of this motion, appellant shows the Court the following:

I

. The Appellant was convicted in the District Court of Travis County, Texas of the offense of Manslaughter. After a probation revocation hearing, Appellant was assessed 15 years TDCJ.

II. The deadline for filing the Appellant’s Brief is September 8, 2015 and Appellant has requested two previous extensions.

III. ACCEPTED 03-14-00531-CR 6937091 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/15/2015 3:38:39 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKAt t o rn ey fo r t h e A p pel l an t wo u l d fu rt h er sh o w t h e Co u rt t h at h e has b een

d i l i g en t i n p rep ari ng Ap p el l ee’ s b ri ef i n t h i s cas e. Du e t o a v ery b us y d o ck et co u n s el
i s u n ab le t o co m

p l et e t h e b ri ef wi t h i n t h e t i m e fram e. Co un s el req ues t s an ex t en s i o n

o f t i m e s o t h at h e m ay ad eq u at el y p rep are Ap p el lan t ’ s Bri ef. Co u n s el m u s t co m p l et e
h i s i n v es t i g at i on o f t h e reco rd an d d raft t he b ri ef.

W HEREFORE, Ap p el l an t p ray s t h e Co u rt g ran t t h i s M o t io n an d e x t en d t h e
d ead li n e fo r fi l i ng t h e Ap p el lan t ’ s Bri ef t o Oct o b er 1 9 , 2 0 1 5.

Res p ect fu l ly

Su b m i t t ed , ARIEL PAYAN At t o rn ey at Law 1 0 12 Ri o Gran d e Au s ti n, Tex as 7 8 7 0 1 (5 1 2 ) 4 78 -3 9 0 0 (5 1 2 ) 4 72 -4 1 0 2 (fax ) Ari el pay an @ h o t m ai l.co m
/ s / Ari el Pay an
ARIEL PAYAN St at e Bar No

. 0 0 7 9 4 4 3 0

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

By m y si g n at u re ab o v e, I h ereb y cert i fy t h a t a t ru e an d co rrect co py o f t h e ab o ve an d fo reg oi n g M o t i o n fo r Ex t en s i on o f Ti m e t o Fi l e Ap p el l at e Bri ef h as b een d el i v ered t o t h e Cri m i n al Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey o f s ai d Co u n t y Tex as , o n Sep t em b er 1 5, 2 0 1 5

.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. AD18-11-000]

On Tuesday, July 31, 2018, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission convened a Commissioner-led technical conference to discuss policy issues related to the reliability of the Bulk-Power System.

All interested persons are invited to file post-technical conference comments on the topics concerning the reliability of the Bulk-Power System discussed during the technical conference, including the questions listed in the Supplemental Notices issued in this proceeding on June 1, 2018 and July 17, 2018. Attached to this notice are the electric reliability topics and questions related to each Panel. Commenters need not respond to all questions asked. Commenters should organize responses consistent with the numbering of the attached questions and identify to what extent their responses are generally applicable. Commission staff reserves the right to post additional follow-up questions related to those panels if deemed necessary. In addition, commenters are encouraged, when possible, to provide specific examples and data in support of their answers. Comments must be submitted on or before 30 days from the date of this notice and should not exceed 30 pages.

                    For further information about this Notice, please contact: Lodie White, Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8453,                     *lodie.white@ferc.gov*; Robert Clark, Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8165,                     *robert.clark@ferc.gov*.                

Dated: August 9, 2018.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-17539 Filed 8-14-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
SUMMARY MEMORANDUM OPINION; NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLIC ATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTER S

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LARRY HODGE ,

Plaintiff

,

v.

THE INVISIBLE EMPIRE , et al.,

Defendant s

. Civil Action No. 12

- cv

- 1412 (RLW)

MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

This matter comes before the Court on review of the plaintiff’s pro se civil complaint.

This Court issued an Order to Show Cause to plaintiff Larry Hodge because it appeared that his

complaint failed to meet the minimal pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. (Dkt

. No. 4). On December 3 , 2012 Mr. Hodge filed an amended complaint

that is even more vague and conclusory than his first. (Dkt

. No. 7). Accordingly, this Court will

dismiss the case.

The Court acknowledges that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent

standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner , 404

U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. T isch , 656 F . Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal

1 This unpublished memorandum opinion is intended solely to inform the parties and any reviewing court of the basis for the instant ruling, or alternatively, to assist in any potential future analysis of the res judicata , law of the case, or preclusive effect of the ruling. The Court has designated this opinion as “not intended for publication,” but this Court cannot prevent or prohibit the publication of this opinion in the various and sundry electronic and lega l databases (as it is a public document), and this Court cannot prevent or prohibit the citation of this opinion by counsel. Cf. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1. Nonetheless, as stated in the operational handbook adopted by our Court of Appeals, “counsel are remind ed that the Court’s decision to issue an unpublished disposition means that the Court sees no precedential value in that disposition.” D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 43 (2011).SUMMARY MEMORANDUM OPINION; NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLIC ATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTER S

2 Rules of Civil Procedure requires complaints to contain “(1) a short and plain statement of the

grounds for the court’s jurisdiction

. . . (2) a short and plain statement of the claim sho wing that

the pleader is entitled to relief ; and (3) a demand for the relief sought . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a).

While certain statu tes are cited on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint , it is void of any factual detail

and borders on the incoherent

. Bec ause the complaint does not establish the nature or basis of

Plaintiff’s claims, it fails to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

. “The dismissal of

a complaint on the ground that it is unintelligible is unexceptionable.” See, e.g.

, Robinson

Reeder v. Kearns , 818 F. Supp. 2d 61, 64 (D.D.C. 2011) (citations omitted). Mr. Hodg e’s

pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 8 & 9 ) are DENIED

. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

SO ORDERED.

Date: December 12 , 2012 ROBERT L. WILKINS Unite d State s Distric t Judge
EXHIBIT 32.1






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO






SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002














In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of China ShouGuan Mining Corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the






“Report”), I, Feize Zhang, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:






a) The report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and






b) The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.










Dated: May 20, 2011






CHINA SHOUGUAN MINING CORPORATION, Registrant






/s/ Feize Zhang




By: Feize Zhang, Principal Executive Officer
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3327

To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect domestic and foreign

tourists and other travelers in interstate and foreign commerce.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 21, 1993

Mr. ABERCROMBIE (for himself, Mr. OBERSTAR, and Mr. BACCHUS of Florida) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to protect domestic

and foreign tourists and other travelers in interstate

and foreign commerce.

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 ‘‘Traveler Protection

5 Act of 1993’’.

6 SEC. 2. TITLE 18 AMENDMENT.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part I of title 18, United States

8 Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 89 the follow9 ing:
2

•HR 3327 IH

1 ‘‘CHAPTER 90—PROTECTION OF TRAVELERS

‘‘Sec.

‘‘1831. Crimes of violence directed against travelers.

2 ‘‘§ 1831. Crimes of violence directed against travelers

3 ‘‘(a) Whoever engages in conduct that—

4 ‘‘(1) is a crime of violence in the State where

5 the conduct occurs; and

6 ‘‘(2) is directed at a victim who is an individual

7 not domociled in that State;

8 shall be guilty of a like offense against the United States

9 and subject to a like punishment in a Federal prosecution.

10 ‘‘(b) As used in this section, the term ‘State’ includes

11 Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and any other terri12 tory or possession of the United States.’’.

13 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of chapters

14 for part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by

15 inserting after the item relating to chapter 89 the follow16 ing new item:

‘‘90. Protection of Travelers .......................................................... 1831’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460


# JUL 6- 2011

,)FFI(,E OF AIR AN RADIAT'O.·

Mr. G. Vinson Hellwig Chief, Air Quality Division State ofMichigan, Department ofEnvironmental Quality Constitution Hall 525 West Allegan Street Post Office Box 30473 Lansing, Michigan 48909-7973
DearMr. Hellwig:
Thank you for your letter ofJune 8, 2011, requesting an extension ofthe public commentperiod for the proposed "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oilfired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards ofPerformance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-CommercialInstitutional Steam Generating Units" (the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule), which was published in the Federal Register on May 3, 2011. The proposal identified a public comment period of60 days; that period would have ended onJuly 5, 2011. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, however, recently announced an extension ofthe comment period by 30 days to August 4.
While we are extending the commentperiod, we are not seeking to extend the November 16, 2011, deadline for signature ofthe final rule, and remain committed to meeting that deadline.
The 30-day extension will provide the public with a l40-day period to review the proposal. As you know, interested parties were aware ofthe posting on March 16, 2011, ofthe signed proposal on the EPA's website (http:/ /www
.epa.gov/ttnlatw/utility/utilitypg.html), along with much ofthe pertinent supporting documentation (includingthe analyses used in establishing the proposed emission limits and the technical support documents). The proposal was published a little over six weeks later, on May 3, marking the beginning ofthe formal public comment period. This will provide the public with approximately 140 days to review and provide written comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents. Itwill also provide at least 60 days for other documentationthat was notposted on the website until after the proposed rule was signed. Due to the substantive issues specific to this rulemaking, this corriment period is significantly longer than statutorily required.

Inlernet Address (URL) • http IIwwwepa gov Recycled/Recyclable' Pnnted With egetilble all Based Inks on 100% Postc(1nsumer. Process Chloro"B Free Recycled PaperAgain, thank you for your letter. We look forward to the timely receipt ofyour corrunents. Sincerely,

McCarthy Assistant Administrator Gin
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 19 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-170529) and Amendment No. 529 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 31, 2016, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 12, 2016, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.







/s/ Ernst & Young LLP














Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


November 16, 2016
#### J. Mar Service Center, Inc., et al., Appellants, v Maureen Rahaniotis et al., Respondents. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[721 NYS2d 275]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for lost profits, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Phelan, J.), entered November 10, 1999, as denied their motion, in effect, to vacate an order of the same court, dated July 1, 1999, which, *sua sponte,*dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3216 upon the plaintiffs’ failure to file a note of issue.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

As the order dated May 1, 1998, was a valid 90-day notice pursuant to CPLR 3216 *(see, Forman v Fleet Bank,*262 AD2d 449; *Pollucci v Rizzo,*261 AD2d 594; *Safina v Queens-Long Is. Med. Group,*238 AD2d 395; *Longacre Corp. v Better Hosp. Equip. Corp.,*228 AD2d 653; *cf., Ameropan Realty Corp. v*
      *394
      *Rangeley Lakes Corp.,*222 AD2d 631), “it was incumbent upon the plaintiff[s] to comply with the notice by filing an appropriate note of issue or by moving, before the default date, to either vacate the notice or to extend the 90-day period” *(Forman v Fleet Bank, supra,*at 449). Because the plaintiffs failed to act, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint *(see, Forman v Fleet Bank, supra; Pollucci v Rizzo, supra).*

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs’ motion to vacate their default under the 90-day notice because they failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse and a meritorious cause of action *(see, Gourdet v Hershfeld,*277 AD2d 422; *Gray v Gray,*266 AD2d 261; *Smith v City of New York,*237 AD2d 344; *Goncalves v Stuyvesant Dev. Assocs.,*232 AD2d 275; *M.P.S. Mktg. Servs. v Champion Intl. Corp.,*176 AD2d 250). Santucci, J. P., Krausman, S. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 21.1


Antigua Cement, Ltd.
Antigua Development and Construction, Ltd.
Antigua Heavy Constructors, Ltd.
Antigua Masonry Products, Ltd.
Bahamas Construction and Development, Ltd.
Bouwbedrijf Boven Winden, N.V.
Bouwbedrijf Boven Winden (Saba), N.V.
Caribbean Cement Carriers, Ltd.
Caribbean Masonry Products, Ltd.
Cramer Construction, N.V.
Devcon Caribbean Purchasing Corp.
M21 Industries, Inc.
Proar Construction Materials Company, N.V.
Puerto Rico Crushing Company, Inc.
Societe des Carriers de Grand Case, S.A.R.L.
V.I. Cement and Building Products, Inc.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.4

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

    We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this amended
Registration Statement on Form S-3 of Viatel, Inc. of our report dated
April 19, 2000 relating to the financial statements of New Comms.UK (a fully
integrated business of AT&T Corp.), also referred to in this amended
Registration Statement as "Comms UK", as of December 31, 1999 and 1998 and for
the years ended December 31, 1999 and 1998, which appears in the Viatel, Inc.
Report on Form 8-K/A dated May 12, 2000. We also consent to the reference to us
under the heading "Experts" in such amended Registration Statement.

PricewaterhouseCoopers
London, United Kingdom
September 8, 2000
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2975 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2975

   To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act to reduce 
  funding if States do not enact legislation that requires the death 
                       penalty in certain cases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 6, 1993

Ms. Molinari (for herself, Mr. Quinn, Mr. Levy, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. 
King, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Armey, Mr. Walker, Mr. Bliley, Mr. Solomon, Mr. 
 Traficant, Mr. Paxon, and Mr. Gilman) introduced the following bill; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act to reduce 
  funding if States do not enact legislation that requires the death 
                       penalty in certain cases.

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

SECTION 1. GRANT REDUCTION FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.

    Section 506 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g)(1) In order not to reduce the funds available under this 
subpart by 25 percent (for redistribution to other participating 
States), a State shall, on the first day of each fiscal year succeeding 
the first fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1994, have in 
effect throughout the State in such fiscal year a law which requires a 
sentence of death to be imposed when a law enforcement officer is 
killed in the line of duty.
    ``(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term `law enforcement 
officer' has the same meaning given such term in section 1204(5).''.

                                 <all>
```
#### Calvin MULLEN v. Marilyn McCaa MULLEN.

No. 46258.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 31, 1971.

*787Jacobs, Griffith & Hatcher, Cleveland, for appellant.

No brief filed on behalf of appellee.

INZER, Justice:

This is an appeal by Calvin Mullen from a decree of the Chancery Court of Washington County finding him in contempt of court for failure to pay child support. The court found that appellant had wilfully failed to make child support payments under the former decrees of the court and that he was in arrears in the amount of $350. The court ordered appellant to be incarcerated in the county jail until he purged himself of said contempt by the payment of the $350, plus $8.25 court costs. Appellant requested that the court allow him to appeal to this Court with supersedeas. The court denied the request for the reason that in its opinion, appellant had no statutory right to appeal from his conviction of contempt of court with supersedeas. The court evidently overlooked that we held in Bryant v. Associates Discount Corp., 251 Miss. 1, 167 So.2d 657 (1964), that a person found guilty of civil contempt had a right to appeal with supersedeas under the provisions of Section 1152, Mississippi Code 1942 Annotated (1956).

The record reflects that after the court refused to allow the appeal with super-sedeas, appellant’s present wife paid the $358.25 which was ordered by the court from her own personal funds, and appellant was released from jail. Appellant then posted a $500 cost bond and appealed to this Court contending that the evidence was not sufficient to support the finding that he was in contempt of court.

The payment of $358.25 on his behalf by his present wife effectively purged appellant of the contempt of court. Since appellant has purged himself of contempt of court, the question raised on this appeal is now moot. For this reason, we are of the opinion that this appeal should be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

GILLESPIE, P. J., and BRADY, PATTERSON, and HARPER, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AS FILED
AS PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,232
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,865
<ALLOWANCES>                                       290
<INVENTORY>                                     11,790
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,537
<PP&E>                                          16,150
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,506
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  80,109
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           39,008
<BONDS>                                             49
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              106
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      40,946
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    80,109
<SALES>                                         26,081
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,081
<CGS>                                           16,653
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,351
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   185
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     9
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 280
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (398)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (149)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (249)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (249)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>