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

JUDGMENT RENDERED AP RIL 24, 2020

NO. 03

- 20

- 00113

- CV

Marlonia Ivy, Appellant

v.

Victor Garcia and Wanda Garcia, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 4 OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, KELLY, AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY

This is an appeal from the judgm e nt signed by the tr i a l court on January 30, 2020

. Having

reviewed the record

, it appears that the C ourt lacks jurisdiction over the appeal

. Therefore, the

C ourt dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction

. A ppellant shall pay all costs relating to th is

appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
#### Frederick HUNTER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1337.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 3, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Steven Rappaport, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged with first degree murder. He entered a plea of not guilty. Upon trial the jury found him guilty of murder in the second degree. The court entered judgment and imposed a sentence of twenty-five years in the State Penitentiary.

The grounds relied on for reversal have been considered in the light of the record and briefs, and we find no reversible error has been shown. Therefore, the judgment and sentence are affirmed.

Affirmed.
#### Earnest BYRD, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-193.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third, District.

March 11, 1969.

Robert L. Koeppel, Public Defender, and Maurice Jay Kutner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is a direct appeal from two convictions in the Criminal Court of Record of Dade County, Florida, judgments and sentences thereon accordingly.

The principal point on appeal was that the appellant was not properly represented in the trial court by his privately retained counsel.1

Generally, complaints of ineffective assistance of counsel will not be received on appeal wherein such counsel was privately retained. Everett v. State, Fla. App.1964, 161 So.2d 714; Amaral v. State, Fla.App.1965, 171 So.2d 549; Todd v. State, Fla.App.1965, 176 So.2d 344; Coyner v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So.2d 715.

The appellant also complains that his counsel failed to call witnesses for his defense and this denied him a fair trial. This is without merit. Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 224; Jackson v. State, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 194; Smith v. State, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 675.

Therefore, no error appearing in the convictions and judgments here under review, they are hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

. The record indicates that he had two successive private counsel in the trial court. Our files indicate that after the public defender was appointed to represent him on this appeal, he attempted to withdraw by proper motion, which this court denied and required him to file briefs in accordance with Herzig v. State, Fla. App.1967, 200 So.2d 632, modified Fla., 208 So.2d 619; Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB10-CN.89SP **Contact:**  **Contact:**Public Information Office
301-763-3691
- Interactive map
- Video: The Amazing Apportionment Machine
 PARA PUBLICACIÓN INMEDIATA:  LUNES, 13 DE DICIEMBRE DE 2010 COMUNICADO DE PRENSA DE LA OFICINA DEL CENSO -- Oficina del Censo dará a conocer primeros datos del Censo del 2010 **Qué:**
    Cumpliendo con el mandato constitucional, la Oficina del Censo dará a conocer las primeras cifras del Censo del 2010 en una rueda de prensa el martes, 21 de diciembre a las 11:00 a.m. hora del este en el National Press Club en Washington, D.C. Los datos del Censo del 2010 que serán divulgados, incluirán la población residente para el país y el número de escaños congresionales que corresponde proporcional a cada estado.  La ley requiere que la Oficina del Censo reporte los resultados al Presidente para el 31 de diciembre de 2010. **Día:**
Martes, 21 de diciembre de 2010 **Time:**
11 a.m. EST **Hora:**
11:00 a.m. hora del este **Lugar:**
National Press Club 
529 14th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. Detalles adicionales sobre la rueda de prensa se darán a conocer más adelante. Además, se enviará un comunicado de prensa con información sobre un Webinar para los medios. RECURSOS:
Visite http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/interactivemap.php para el uso de un mapa interactivo el cual destaca la historia de la distribución proporcional y los cambios de la población del país a lo largo del siglo pasado. También puede aprender más sobre la distribución proporcional de escaños congresionales en nuestra Edición especial: Facts for Features visitando https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/cb10-ffse05.html o viendo el video The Amazing Apportionment Machine en nuestro canal de YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUCnb5_HZc0. Favor de reservar su participación antes de las 5:00 p.m. hora del este del lunes 20 de diciembre llamando a la Oficina de información pública al 301-763-3691 o pio.2010@census.gov. Síganos a través de Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, Flickr and YouTube (/uscensusbureau).
 
 CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
# C_2016005EN.01000601.xml

| 8.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/6

---

OPINION No 8/2015

(pursuant to Article 287(4), TFEU)

(pursuant to Article 287(4), TFEU)

on a proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EU) 2015/323 of 2 March 2015 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the 11th European Development Fund

(2016/C 5/02)

THE COURT OF AUDITORS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 287(4) thereof,

Having regard to the Internal Agreement between the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council, on the financing of European Union aid under the multiannual financial framework for the period 2014 to 2020, in accordance with the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, and on the allocation of financial assistance for the Overseas Countries and Territories to which Part Four of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union applies (1), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof,

1

Having regard to the Commission's proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EU) 2015/323 of 2 March 2015 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the 11th European Development Fund (2),

2

Having regard to the Council's request for an opinion on the abovementioned proposal received at the Court of Auditors on 3 November 2015,

HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION:

| 1. | The proposal for a Council Regulation on which the Court of Auditors' opinion is requested aims to clarify that the special accounts opened by the Member States in the name of the Commission, for the purpose of depositing EDF contributions, until they need to be used for payments should be kept free of any charge and interest. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The proposal for a Council Regulation on which the Court of Auditors' opinion is requested aims to clarify that the special accounts opened by the Member States in the name of the Commission, for the purpose of depositing EDF contributions, until they need to be used for payments should be kept free of any charge and interest.

| 2. | The Court of Auditors has no observations to make on the proposal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Court of Auditors has no observations to make on the proposal.

This opinion was adopted by Chamber III, headed by Mr Karel PINXTEN, Member of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 8 December 2015.

For the Court of Auditors

Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA

President

---

(1)  OJ L 210, 6.8.2013, p. 1.

1

(2)  COM(2015) 463 final.

2

---
#### FORD MOTOR CO. v. COCHRAN.

No. 37206.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 1968.

Rehearing Denied May 30, 1968.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 205 So.2d 551.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 15, 2015

NO. 03-15-00040-CR

Kody Lee Broxton, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

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

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

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

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 15, 2015

NO. 03-15-00041-CR

Kody Lee Broxton, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

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

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

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

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 15, 2015

NO. 03-15-00042-CR

Kody Lee Broxton, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 264TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, PEMBERTON, AND BOURLAND

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

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

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

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

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
### CONSIGNE DE NAVIGABILITE

N° F

- 2004

- 178 Diffusion :



### A Date d’émission :

10 novembre 2004 Page :

1 / 2

Cette consigne de navigabilité est publié e par la DGAC pour le compte

de l'AESA, autorité du pays de conception du matériel concerné. Cette consigne de navigabilité fait l'objet d'une

traduction en anglais.

Le texte français constitue la référence. Direction

générale

de

l’aviation

civile

France

Edition

du GSAC Un aéronef concerné par une consigne de navigabilité ne peut être utilisé

qu’en conformité avec les exigences de cette consigne de navigabilité,

sauf accord de l’autorité du pays d’immatriculation

.

Airworthiness Directive(s) étrangère(s) correspondante(s) :

Sans objet Consigne(s) de navigabilité remplacée(s) :

Néant

Responsable de la navigabilité du matériel :



### EUROCOPTER

Certificat(s) de type n° 84

Fiche(s) de donn ées n° 157 Type(s) de matériel(s) : 

### Hélicoptères AS 350

Chapitre ATA :



### 64 Objet :



### Rotor de queue

- Languette bord de fuite des pales arrière

1. APPLICABILITE

:

Hélicoptères AS 350 B, BA, BB, B1, B2, B3 et D, équipés de pales arrière référencées : 355A 12.0040

tous points et 355A 12.0050.04, du numéro de série 8400 à 9224 inclus avant application de la fiche de

réparation FR n° 238 ou de la CT 64.10.00.872 (voir FME).

2. RAISONS :

Cette consigne de navigabilité (CN) fait suite à la découverte de plusieurs cas de décollements importants

de la languette de bord de fuite sur des pales arrière.

La perte de cette languette conduit à une augmenta tion importante du niveau vibratoire de l'appareil.

3. ACTIONS IMPERATIVES ET DELAIS D’APPLICATION :

Les mesures suivantes sont rendues impératives à compter de la date d'entrée en vigueur de la présente

CN :

3.1. Au plus tard dans les 100 heures de vo l sans dépasser 3 mois (à la première échéance atteinte),

poser des rivets supplémentaires sur la languette de bord de fuite des pales référencées au § 1 selon

les directives décrites dans le § 2.B de l'Alert Service Bulletin EUROCOPTER AS 350 n° 64.00.05

cité en référence.

3.2. Avant montage de pales détenues en rechange et référencées au § 1, appliquer les directives

décrites dans le § 2.B de l'ASB en référence.

4. DOCUMENT DE REFERENCE :

Alert Service Bulletin EUROCOPTER AS 350 n° 64.00.05 "correspon d à la fiche de réparation FR n° 283".

(Toute révision ultérieure approuvée de cet ASB est acceptable).

n/CG

### CONSIGNE DE NAVIGABILITE

N° F

- 2004

- 178 Diffusion :



### A Date d’émission :

10 novembre 2004 Page :

2 / 2

5. DATE D'ENTREE EN VIGUEUR :

20 novembre 2004.

6. REMARQUE

:

Pour les questions concernant le contenu technique des exigences de cette CN, con tacter :

EUROCOPTER (STXI)

- Aéroport de Marseille Provence 13725 Marignane Cedex

- France

Tél. : 33 (0) 4 42 85 97 97

- Fax : 33 (0) 4 42 85 99 66

E

- Mail : Directive.technical

- support@eurocopter.com

7. APPROBATION :

Cette CN est approuvée sous la réfé rence AESA n° 2004

- 10843 du 03 novembre 2004.
No. 71-1022.

No. 71-1598.

No. 72-56.

No. 72-730.

No. 72-841.

No. 72-908.

No. 72-946.

No. 72-959.

No. 72-5195.

No. 72-5726.

No. 72-5745.

No. 72-5882.

No. 72-6014.

No. 72-6100.

No. 72-6129.

#### United States *v.*Basye et al., Brennan, Secretary of Labor *v.*Arnheim & Neely, Inc., et al., Markle et al. *v.*Abele et al., Markle et al. *v.*Abele et al., Eclipse Fuel Engineering Co. *v.*Maxon Premix Burner Co., Inc., Joftes *v.*Wexler et al., Musto *v.*United States, Young *v.*United States, Smith *v.*Supreme Court of Oklahoma, Furgerson *v.*Casper, Lopez *v.*California, Walker *v.*Alabama, Todd *v.*Cardwell, Warden, Gerardi *v.*Faver, Gerardi *v.*MacLaughlin et al.,

410 U. S. 441;

410 U. S. 512;

410 U. S. 951;

410 U. S. 951;

410 U. S. 929;

410 U. S. 966;

410 U. S. 982;

410 U. S. 967;

409 U. S. 1126;

410 U. S. 933;

410 U. S. 959;

410 U. S. 939;

410 U. S. 970;

410 U. S. 981; and

410 U. S. 981. Petitions for rehearing denied.
259 La. 767

#### GRAND ISLE CAMPSITES, INC. v. Richard E. CHEEK and Edward V. Fetzer.

No. 51647.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 1, 1971.

In re: Grand Isle Campsites, Inc., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 249 So.2d 268.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                           7,473
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,897
<ALLOWANCES>                                       877
<INVENTORY>                                     54,193
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               122,094
<PP&E>                                          49,995
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,083
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 187,219
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           34,707
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           148
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,576
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   187,219
<SALES>                                         50,427
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                50,427
<CGS>                                           29,008
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,316
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   196
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    68
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,802
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,113
<INCOME-TAX>                                       634
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,479
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,479
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
```

                                  Exhibit 32.1

                            Section 906 Certification
                          of Kent I. Madsen (President)

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of MACC Private Equities Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Kent I. Madsen, President and Secretary of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) 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/ Kent I. Madsen
                                           -----------------------------------
                                           Kent I. Madsen,
                                           President and Secretary

Date: January 12, 2005
```
Order entered December 30, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00615-CV

DASPIT LAW FIRM, PLLC, Appellant

V.

ERIC HERMAN, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-01463-C

ORDER

On December 17, 2019, we ordered court reporter Janet E. Wright not sit as a reporter 

until a supplemental record containing certain exhibits that were omitted from the original 

reporter’s record was filed. The supplemental record has now been filed. Accordingly, we 

VACATE our December 17th order.

We ORDER appellees’ brief be filed no later than January 21, 2020.

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Sally 

Montgomery, Presiding Judge of County Court at Law No. 3; Ms. Wright; the Dallas County 

Auditor’s Office; and, the parties.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT FR ANC IS R AJ, Pe titioner - Appe lla nt, v. M IC HAEL L. B ENOV, W arde n, R

e sponde nt - Appe lle e . No. 11-17469

D.C . No. 1:11-c v-01165-LJO M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 19, 2013 ** B e fore : C ANB Y, TR OTT, a nd THOM AS, C irc uit Judge s. Franc is R a

j a ppe a l s pro se from the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt de ny ing his 28 U.S.C . § 2241 ha

be a s pe tition c ha lle nging a prison disc iplina

ry a c tion tha

t re sulte d in theloss of good tim

e c re d its. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e 

# FIL ED D EC 09 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).re vie w the de nia l of a se c tion 2241 petition de novo, se eTablada v . Thomas , 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th C ir. 2008), a nd we a ffirm . R a j wa s found to ha

ve viola te d the B ure a

u of Prisons’ Prohibite d Ac t s C ode 104, ba se d on his posse s sion of a ra z or bla de . S

e e 28 C .F.R . § 541.13, Ta ble 3, C ode 104 (2010) (prohibiting “ [p] osse ssion, m a n ufa c ture , or introduc tion of a gun, fire arm , we a

p on, sha rpe ne d instrum e nt, knife , da nge rous c he m ic a l, e xplosiveor any am m unition” ). R a

j c onte nds tha

t this finding wa s not supporte d be c a use a ra z o r bla de is not a

“ w e a pon” or “ sha

rpe n e d instrum e nt.” This c onte ntion is una va iling be c a

use a ra z or bla de re m ove d from a disposa ble ra z or is inhe re ntly da nge rous. Ac c ordingly , R a j ’ s due proc e ss rights were not viola te d be c a use som e e vide nc e supports the

disc iplina

ry findings. Se eSupe rinte nde nt v . Hill , 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). In his reply

brie f, R a j a lso c onte nds tha

t the disc iplina

ry he aring offic e r at Ta ft C orre c tiona l Institution la c ke d a uthority to disc ipline him . B e c a

u se this c onte ntion wa s not ra ise d in R a j’ s pe tition be fore the distric t c ourt, we de c line to c onside r it on a

ppe a l. Se eC

ac ope rdo v . De mosthe ne

s , 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th C ir. 1994) (“ Ha

be a s c l a im s tha

t a re not ra ise d be fore the distric t c ourt in thepe tition a re not c ogniz a

ble on a ppe a l.” ). AFFIRM E D. 1 1 - 1 7 4 6 9 2
#### Charles Elwood COPELAND, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-202.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 1, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Alexander BISCUITTI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 41749.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 12, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 23, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.