alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Finance and Accounting Service Providing payment services for the U.S. Department of Defense

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Military Member		 
-  Retired Military & Annuitant		 
-  Civilian Employee		 
-  Contractor & Vendor		 

Hometaxes

                        - ACA IRS Forms                            - ACA FAQs

### Stay Connected

Department of Defense     Department of Veterans Affairs     Military Employment Verification     Warrior Care Website     Defense Contract Mgmt Agency  DoD Forms     Department of State     Civilian Personnel Mgmt Service     DTS Travel Center     System for Award Mgmt (SAM)    Congressional/LegislationPersonnel Force Innovation     Freedom of Information Act     DFAS Hotline   Contact Us     Accessibility / Section 508    EEO / No Fear Act  

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-16-00414-CV

____________________

AURITA F. ARAUJO LINDLEY, Appellant

V.

WILLIAM DICK LINDLEY, Appellee

_______________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 279th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. F-225,100

_______________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

On November 7, 2016, we notified the parties that the notice of appeal did 

not appear to have been timely filed. The appellant, Aurita F. Araujo Lindley, then 

filed a motion for an extension of time to file her notice of appeal.

The trial court signed the judgment on June 24, 2016, and the appellate 

timetables were extended by the timely filing of a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 26.1(a). Notice of appeal was due to be filed on September 22, 2016. Id. 

Appellant filed a notice of appeal on October 28, 2016, more than ninety days from 
2

the date of judgment and outside the period for which we may grant an extension 

of time to perfect appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3. Accordingly, we deny the 

motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal and we dismiss the appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

 ________________________________

STEVE McKEITHEN

 Chief Justice

Submitted on December 7, 2016

Opinion Delivered December 8, 2016

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-50013

Summary Calendar

 

ROBERT L. COMEAUX,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 455;

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,

AFL-CIO, CLC, RAY B. WOOSTER,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-94-CV-771

- - - - - - - - - -

October 2, 1998

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert L. Comeaux appeals the district court’s grant of

summary judgment dismissing his claims under the Labor Management

Reporting and Disclosure Act and under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). 

Having reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties, we

AFFIRM, for essentially the reasons set forth by the district

court. Comeaux v. United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union

No. 455, No. SA-94-CA-0771 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 1997). 

AFFIRMED.
FILED IN 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

April 23, 2015 

ABELACOSTA,CLERK NO. AP-77 ,045 

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS 

* * * 

HARLEM HAROLD LEWIS III, 

Appellant 

v. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee 

* * * 

AP-77,04 

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 

AUSTIN, TEXA 

Transmitted 4/22/2015 3:37:41 PI 

Accepted 4/22/2015 4:15:36 PI 

ABEL ACOST. 

CLER 

MOTION FOR WITHDRAW AND SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL 

*Death Penalty Case* 

On Appeal in Cause No. 1428102 from the 

351 ST District Court of Harris County, Texas 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT OF CRIMINAL 

APPEALS: 

NOW COMES, ROBERT MORROW, requesting to withdraw as 

counsel for Appellant HARLEM HAROLD LEWIS III and GERALD E. 

BOURQUE, requesting to substitute as counsel for Appellant, HARLEM 
HAROLD LEWIS III, and files this Motion for Withdraw and Substitution 

of Counsel. In support of this motion, Counsel respectfully shows the Court 

the following: 

I. 

After a hearing, the trial court determined that a conflict had arisen 

between appointed counsel and Appellant. Attorney Gerald E. Bourque, 

State Bar No. 02716500, requests to substitute in as new appellate counsel. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Counsel respectfully . 

prays that the Court grant his motion as set out above. 

2 

Respectfully submitted: 

Is/ Robert A. Morrow 

ROBERT A. MORROW 

State Bar No. 14542600 

24 Waterway Ave., Suite 660 

The Woodlands, Texas 77380 

Telephone: 281-379-6901 

Fax: 832-813-0321 

Is/ Gerald E. Bourque 

GERALD E. BOURQUE 

State Bar No. 02716500 

24 Waterway Ave., Suite 660 

The Woodlands, TX 77380 

Telephone: 281-3 79-6901 

Fax: 832-813-0321 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

As required, and in accordance with, the Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure, I certify that I have served this document on the following parties 

on April 22, 2015: 

Harris County District Attorney's Office 

Appellate Division 

1201 Franklin, Suite 600 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Ph. 713-755-5826 

Fax: 713-755-5809 

Harlem Lewis Harold Lewis III 

TDCJ# 00999595 

3872 FM 350 South 

Livingston, Texas 77351 

Is/ Robert A. Morrow 

ROBERT A. MORROW
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Norman Dade, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J., at trial and sentence), rendered June 12, 1987, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 7 to 21 years imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s conviction arises out of the stabbing of James Acevedo during an argument on a Bronx street in the late evening hours of August 2, 1986.

We reject defendant’s claim that his guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Seven eye-witnesses testified that defendant threatened the victim’s life and then chased him through the streets. Although some eye-witnesses did not actually see the knife, all testified consistently that at some point during the dispute defendant held something in his hand and made contact with the victim’s chest area, after which the victim collapsed, bleeding profusely from a chest wound that caused his death. Defendant testified that he was carrying a knife at the time in question, and although he did not recall stabbing the victim, he admitted throwing the knife into the East River upon learning that he was being sought by the police. In a statement made by defendant at the time of his arrest, he admitted "stabbing at” the victim. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, it is clear that a rational trier of fact, applying valid reasoning and permissible inferences, could find that defendant’s guilt of manslaughter in the first degree was proven beyond a reasonable doubt *(see, People v Thompson,*72 NY2d 410, *rearg denied*73 NY2d 870).

Defendant has offered no factual support for his claim that his counsel failed to provide adequate legal assistance regarding his prospective grand jury testimony and it is noted that defendant advised the court that he would not testify before the grand jury. The defendant was afforded both the opportunity to testify before the grand jury, and a reasonable adjournment for purposes of consulting with counsel.

Defendant’s claim on appeal that his trial counsel erred in not requesting a jury charge on manslaughter in the second degree fails logically in light of both the offered defense of justification, and the overwhelming evidence of intentional *389conduct on the part of defendant. While defense counsel’s advocacy was aggressive and, at times, abrasive, the heated exchanges either occurred outside the presence of the jury, or, when not, were effectively controlled by the court with appropriate instructions. The net effect was an adversarial process that did not deprive defendant of a fair trial by reason of counsel’s ineffectiveness. *(Strickland v*Washington, 466 US 668, *reh denied*467 US 1267.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
M14004 – Chemical 4 

Process Flow CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION REMOVED
EXHIBIT 99.3



Report of Independent Accountants



Fleet Bank (RI), National Association ("Fleet"), Servicer
and
Fleet Credit Card Funding Trust, Transferor



We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Management Report on Internal Control over Servicing of Securitized Credit Card Receivables, that Fleet maintained effective internal control over servicing of securitized credit card receivables as of September 30, 2002, based upon the criteria for effective internal control established in "Internal Control - Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.  Fleet's management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over servicing of securitized credit card receivables.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included obtaining an understanding of internal control over servicing of the securitized credit card receivables, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, misstatement due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projections of any evaluation of internal control over servicing of securitized credit card receivables to future periods are subject to the risk that the internal control may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion that Fleet maintained effective internal control over servicing of securitized credit card receivables as of September 30, 2002, is fairly stated, in all material respects, based upon the criteria for effective internal control established in "Internal Control - Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.





November 15, 2002



/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP



Page 45
Exhibit 32.1





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 Quarterly Report of High Performance Beverages Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended October 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Toby McBride, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





1.
The Report fully complies with 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 result of operations of the Company.




Dated: January 31, 2014




/s/ Toby McBrideToby McBrideTitle: Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2837

___________ Executive Corners Office Building ; * Irvin Galstad, Dr., DDS, Ltd.; John * Mahowald, dba Dacotah Leathe r * Company; Team Electronics, dba * Electronics Marketing, Inc.; W & L , * Inc., dba Cherished Moments ; * Johnston-Miller, Inc., dba Lifestyles; * Ram Enterprises, Inc., dba Hanky Panky * Gift Shoppe and Gallery; Daniel L. * Spiros, dba Service Shoe Shop; Pure * Plus Dry Cleaners, Inc., dba Pure Plus * Cleaners, dba Hour Glass Cleaners ; * Appeal from the United States SMS, Inc., dba The Bottle Shop; Ivan R. * District Court for the District Jensen; JCM, Inc., dba Miller's True * of North Dakota. Value Hardware; Red River Optical , * Inc., dba Duling Optical; Don Lindgren , * [UNPUBLISHED] dba Sorlie Building, 319-323 Demers; * Stan's Communication, Inc., * * Appellants, * * v. * * Maryland Insurance Company, * * Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: May 10, 2000 Filed: May 18, 2000* The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas, sitting by designation. -2- ___________ B efore WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, FAGG, Circuit Judge, and HENDREN, * District Judge.

___________ PER CURIAM.
This diversity-based lawsuit concerns a coverage dispute between the Appellants and Maryland Insurance Company. Contrary to the Appellants' view that the policy provided coverage for sewer and drain backup damage, the district court concluded the policy language excluding coverage was unambiguous and granted the insurance company summary judgment. We review a grant of summary judgment under a wellestablished standard. Because this is a diversity case, we review de novo questions of state law. After reviewing the record and the parties' briefs, we are satisfied the district court correctly applied state law and properly resolved the coverage dispute. Believing that an extended opinion by this court would have no precedential value in this diversity case, we affirm on the basis of the district court's ruling without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Reubin O’D. ASKEW et al., Appellants, v. The LARKIN COMPANY, etc. et al., Appellees.

No. 43177.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 16, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
1997 24‐hour PM2.5 NAAQS Maximum Quarterly Value Data Substitution Test

Average 2011 2012 2013 Number Obs 2011 2012 2013 Completeness 20

Q1 26 28 28 Q1 Q2 29 27 31 Q2 Q3 31 22 27 Q3 1

n

th Value 3 3 3 Q4 26 27 31 Q4 

Annual 98 th Percentile 28.0 26.8 29.2 Annual Count 112 104 117

Average 2011 2012 2013 Number Obs 2011 2012 2013 Completeness 20

Q1 26.0 28.0 28.0 Q1 Q2 29.0 27.0 31.0 Q2 Q3 31.0 31.0 27.0 Q3 1

n

th Value 3 3 3 Q4 26.0 27.0 31.0 Q4 

Annual 98 th Percentile 28.0 26.8 29.2 Annual Count 112 113 117

Incomplete Quarter Max Value Q3

2011 25.02012 26.32013 18.2

Max Q3 2011‐2013 26.3

Riverside

(Magnolia) DV

Riverside (Magnolia) TDV
Average 2011 2012 2013 Number Obs 2011 2012 2013 Completeness 20

Q1 30 31 27 Q1 1Q2 30 30 31 Q2 1Q3 31 31 29 Q3 1

n

th Value 3 3 3 Q4 27 28 23 Q4 

Annual 98 th Percentile 35.3 28.6 26.8 Annual Count 118 120 110

Average 2011 2012 2013 Number Obs 2011 2012 2013 Completeness 20

Q1 30.0 31.0 27.0 Q1 1Q2 30.0 30.0 31.0 Q2 1Q3 31.0 31.0 29.0 Q3 1

n

th Value 3 3 3 Q4 27.0 28.0 31.0 Q4 

Annual 98 th Percentile 35.3 28.6 52.9 Annual Count 118 120 118

Incomplete Quarter Max Value Q4

2011 52.92012 35.22013 49.3

Max Q3 2011‐2013 52.9

Ontario DV Ontario TDV
Average 2011 2012 2013 Number Obs 2011 2012 2013 Completeness 20

Q1 13 15 14 Q1 Q2 15 13 15 Q2 1Q3 12 10 14 Q3 

n

th Value 2 2 2 Q4 15 14 16 Q4 1

Annual 98 th Percentile 30.6 27.4 35.1 Annual Count 55 52 59

Average 2011 2012 2013 Number Obs 2011 2012 2013 Completeness 20

Q1 13.0 15.0 14.0 Q1 Q2 15.0 13.0 15.0 Q2 1Q3 12.0 16.0 14.0 Q3 

n

th Value 2 2 2 Q4 15.0 14.0 16.0 Q4 1

Annual 98 th Percentile 30.6 27.4 35.1 Annual Count 55 58 59

Incomplete Quarter Max Value Q3

2011 10.02012 8.02013 9.7

Max Q3 2011‐2013 10.0

Big Bear DV Big Bear TDV
Average 2011 2012 2013 Number Obs 2011 2012 2013 Completeness 20

Q1 29 27 28 Q1 Q2 29 28 27 Q2 Q3 21 26 27 Q3 

n

th Value 3 3 3 Q4 22 26 28 Q4 

Annual 98 th Percentile 32.5 27.1 33.4 Annual Count 101 107 110

Average 2011 2012 2013 Number Obs 2011 2012 2013 Completeness 20

Q1 29.0 27.0 28.0 Q1 Q2 29.0 28.0 27.0 Q2 Q3 31.0 26.0 27.0 Q3 1

n

th Value 3 3 3 Q4 30.0 26.0 28.0 Q4 1

Annual 98 th Percentile 65.0 27.1 33.4 Annual Count 119 107 110

Incomplete Quarter Max Value Q3 Q4

2011 26.6 65.02012 34.8 33.52013 23.7 55.3

Max Q3 2011‐2013 34.8 65.0

San Bernardino DV San Bernardino TDV
II 

Calendar No. 30 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 583 

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the 

Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 14, 2013 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. WICKER, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. 

BURR, Mr. COATS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. ENZI, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. MORAN, Mr. RISCH, Mr. THUNE, 

and Mr. JOHANNS) introduced the following bill; which was read the first 

time 

MARCH 18, 2013 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 

A BILL 

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of 

amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of 

each born and preborn human person. 

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 ‘‘Life at Conception Act 

5 of 2013’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 583 PCS

1 SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE. 

2 To implement equal protection for the right to life 

3 of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant 

4 to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Con5 gress’ power under article I, section 8, to make necessary 

6 and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of 

7 the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the 

8 United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right 

9 to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each 

10 human being. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 

11 require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her 

12 unborn child. 

13 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

14 In this Act: 

15 (1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING.—The 

16 terms ‘‘human person’’ and ‘‘human being’’ include 

17 each member of the species homo sapiens at all 

18 stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, 

19 cloning, or other moment at which an individual 

20 member of the human species comes into being. 

21 (2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’, and as used in 

22 the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of 

23 the United States and other applicable provisions of 

24 the Constitution, includes the District of Columbia, 

25 the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other 

26 territory or possession of the United States. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 30 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 583 

A BILL 

To implement equal protection under the 14th artiperson. right to life of each born and preborn human cle of amendment to the Constitution for the 

MARCH 18, 2013 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### In the Matter of Richard S. Fox et al., Petitioners, v James P. Corcoran, as Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent New York State Department of Insurance, dated December 16, 1988, which, after a hearing, suspended the petitioners’ license to sell insurance for a period of not less than one year and directed them to pay "as penalty and forfeit”, the sum of $269,750 pursuant to Insurance Law §§ 109 and 2117.

Adjudged that the petition is granted, on the law, without costs or disbursements, to the extent that the penalty imposed is annulled, the determination is otherwise confirmed, and the matter is remitted to the respondent New York State Department of Insurance for the imposition of a new penalty in accordance herewith.

The record contains substantial evidence supporting the determination that the petitioners violated Insurance Law § 2117 by promoting and participating in the sale of 1,039 memberships in the American Motor Club (hereinafter AMC), an entity which was not licensed by the New York State Department of Insurance. Accordingly, we do not disturb this finding *(see, 300 Gramatan Ave. Assocs. v State Div. of Human Rights,*45 NY2d 176, 179, 180).

The respondents imposed a monetary penalty of $269,750, which included a penalty of $259,750, pursuant to Insurance Law § 109 (which was one-half of the maximum permissible penalty under that statute, i.e., $519,500 [$500 for each of 1,039 offenses]) plus $10,000 pursuant to Insurance Law § 2117 *524($500 for each month that the violation continued, which in this case was 20 months). However, we agree with the petitioners that the imposition of monetary sanctions under both Insurance Law §§ 109 and 2117 was improper *(see, Matter of Hroncich v Corcoran,*158 AD2d 274, 275). The respondents also suspended the petitioners’ licenses for a period of one year. Although Insurance Law § 2127 allows the sanction of a license suspension, the sanction of revocation or suspension is to be considered as an alternative to monetary sanctions. However, we note that Insurance Law § 2127 does permit a monetary sanction of $2,500 in addition to the penalty of up to $500 for each violation *(Matter of Hroncich v Corcoran, supra).*Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the respondents for the imposition of a new penalty. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Sullivan and Miller, JJ., concur.