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

NO. 03
- 20
- 00461
- CR

Cha
- Ka Romain Johnson, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF LAMPASAS COUNTY NO. 8127, THE HONORABLE JOHN GAUNTT, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Appellant Cha

- Ka Romain Johnson , proceeding pro se, has filed a notice of appeal from the district court ’ s denial of his motion for forensic DNA testing and request for appointment of counsel. Se e Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 64.01

– .05 . However, our review of the
record reflects that the district court has not signed an orde r denying the motion. 1

A written and signed appealable order is a prerequisite to invoking this Court ’ s appellate jurisdicti on. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1) ; State v. Rosenbaum , 818 S.W.2d 39 8, 402 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) ; Dewalt v. State , 417 S.W.3d 678, 685 n.32 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2013, pet. ref ’ d)

. However, such a jurisdictional defect is curable

— we treat the notice of app eal as

1 T he district court’s docket sheet reflects that the district court has denied the order , and the record includes a letter from the district cler k informing Johnson that his motion has been denied . However, the rec ord contains no written order

.2

prematurely filed, abate the appeal, and remand the case to the trial court for preparation of an

ap pealable order. See Tex. R. App. P. 27.1(b) ; Dewalt , 417 S.W.3d at 685 n.32. Accordingly,
we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the district court for entry of a signed order denying
John son ’ s motion for forensic DNA testing and request for appointment of counsel. See Tex.
Code Crim. Proc. art. 64.05 ; Swearingen v. State , 189 S.W.3d 779, 781 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006 ) ; see also Panus v. State , N o . 03

- 20

- 00099

- CR , 2020 WL 1528050 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin Mar. 31, 2020) ( per curiam order and mem. op. ) (abating appeal from denial of motion for DNA testing under similar circumstances). A supplemental clerk ’ s record containing the signed order
is to b e prepared and f

orwarded to this Court no later than November 12, 2020

. It is so ordered October 28 , 2020.

B efore Justices Goodwin, Triana, and Smith
A bate d and Remanded
Filed: October 28, 2020
Do Not Publish
EXHIBIT 32





<PAGE>


      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Americann, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2014 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), Timothy Keogh, the Company's Principal
Executive Officer and Benjamin Barton the Company's Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of their knowledge:

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

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


May 19, 2014                            /s/ Timothy Keogh
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Timothy Keogh, Principal Executive
                                        Officer


May 19, 2014                            /s/ Benjamin Barton
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Benjamin Barton, Principal Financial
                                        and Accounting Officer
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WEN SIONG TJONG,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-70666

Agency No. A095-629-750

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted January 10, 2011** 

Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Wen Siong Tjong, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of

the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision (“IJ”) denying his application for asylum and

withholding of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We

FILED

JAN 20 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-70666

review for substantial evidence factual findings and de novo legal questions. 

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part, dismiss

in part, and grant in part the petition for review, and we remand.

The record does not compel the conclusion that Tjong’s late-filed asylum

application is excused by any extraordinary circumstances. See 8 C.F.R. §

1208(a)(5); Dhital v. Mukasey, 532 F.3d 1044, 1050 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly,

we deny the petition as to his asylum claim.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s finding that Tjong’s

mistreatment by native Indonesians did not rise to the level of persecution. See

Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d at 1059-60. However, in finding Tjong did not face a

clear probability of persecution, the agency did not apply the disfavored group

analysis to Tjong’s claim. Because the agency did not have the benefit of our

intervening decisions in Wakkary and Tampubolon v. Holder, 610 F.3d 1056 (9th

Cir. 2010), we remand for the BIA to assess Tjong’s withholding of removal claim

under the disfavored group analysis in the first instance. See INS v. Ventura, 537

U.S. 12, 16-18 (2002) (per curiam).

We lack jurisdiction to review Tjong’s due process contention that the IJ

was biased, because Tjong did not raise this argument to the BIA. See

Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2001). 
3 08-70666

Each party shall bear its own costs for this petition for review.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part;

GRANTED in part; REMANDED.
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 Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.38 MB)

Tags:DLA Distribution, Defense Logistics Agency Distribution, dla, AWARDS, People and Culture, Defense Logistics Agency

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
U

.S

. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration 

## SEP 16 2015

Robert Glasscock Gulfstream Aerospac: e Corporation PO Box 2206, M/S R-02 Savannah, GA 31402-2206
Dear Mr. Glasscock : Transport Airplane Directorate 1601 Lind Avenue , S.W

. Renton , Washington 98057-3356

We have received your petition letter no. G-ODA-15-0619 , dated July 30, 2015, requesting relieffrom one part of§ 25.1447(c)(l) ofTitle 14, Code ofFederal Regulations, at amendment 25-1 16. This exemption, ifgranted, would allow the installation of a modified passenger-oxygen system on Gulfstream Model GVIT-G500 airplanes which, when operating into or out ofan airfield with a pressure altitude up to 15 ,000 ft. , would allow the Cabin Pressure Control System (CPCS) and the passenger oxygen control panel to be configured to allow the cabin internal pressure altitude to reach as high as 15 ,300 feet during normal operations, and to minimize the possibility of nuisance passenger-oxygen-mask deployment during takeoff and descent at high-elevation airports.
This request was published in the Department ofTransportation's Federal Docket Management System (at regulations

.gov) on August 13, 2015, and has been assigned Docket No. FAA-2015 -3 311. We are in the process ofreviewing your request. We will contact you ifwe need additional information.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your petition or the petition process, please contact Robert Hettman at (425) 227-2683 , or by e-mail at robert.hettman @ faa.gov. Sincerely,

Mark Forseth Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**THERESE M. GREIM, NICOLE GREIM, A MINOR, BY THERESE M. GREIM,** 
**GUARDIAN, AND EVAN GREIM,**

**Petitioners**

**v.**

**MARY V.Z. WACHTERHAUSER AND JESSICA SIROLLY,** 

**Respondents :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 70 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 23rd day of June, 2016, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Donohue did not participate in the consideration or decision of this** 

**matter.**
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF I.K. AND E.K., 

CHILDREN,

 

 Appellant,

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00055-CV

Appeal from the

383rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2019DCM7783)

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellant’s Motion to Suspend Briefing Deadline. After 

further consideration, the motion is GRANTED. Therefore, the Court ORDERS the Court Reporter 

for the 383rd District Court of El Paso County, Texas, to file the supplemental reporter’s record

with this Court on or before December 14, 2022. The Appellant is to make the necessary 

arrangements with the Court Reporter to have the supplemental filed with the Court. The 

Appellant’s brief will be due fourteen days after the supplemental reporter’s record is filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of November, 2022.

PER CURIAM

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox and Alley, JJ.
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                       CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
                                       OF
                       DEAN WITTER SPECTRUM BALANCED L.P.

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

               PURSUANT TO SECTION 17-202 OF THE DELAWARE REVISED
                         UNIFORM LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACT

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

                  The  undersigned,  for the purpose of amending the Certificate
of Limited  Partnership  of Dean Witter  Spectrum  Balanced L.P.  filed with the
Secretary  of State of  Delaware  on April 29,  1994,  does  hereby  certify  as
follows:

                  First.     Name  of  Limited  Partnership.  The  name  of  the
         limited partnership is Dean Witter Spectrum Balanced L.P.

                  Second.    Amendment.  Article  First  of the  Certificate  of
         Limited Partnership is amended to read in full as follows:

                  "First.     Name  of  Limited  Partnership.  The  name  of the
         limited partnership is Dean Witter Spectrum Global Balanced L.P."

                  IN  WITNESS   WHEREOF,   the  undersigned  has  executed  this
Certificate of Amendment of Certificate of Limited  Partnership as of the 17 day
of April, 1998.


                                                   By: DEMETER MANAGEMENT
                                                       CORPORATION,
                                                       General Partner


                                                   By  /s/ Mark J. Hawley
                                                       -------------------------
                                                       Mark J. Hawley
                                                       President
Conference Call with Tribal Environmental Professionals 

September 30, 2009 

Meeting Note to the Docket 

Discussion Topics 

On September 30, 2009, representatives from the US Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) participated in a meeting to update interested tribal environmental professionals on 

the status of the rule titled: “Review of New Sources and Modifications in Indian 

Country.” The attendees discussed their general concerns and issues related to this 

action, including: 

 Efforts for implementing this NSR rule in Indian country
EXHIBIT 99.2

ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE

FLEET BANK (RI), NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION

FLEET CREDIT CARD MASTER TRUST
II

The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Fleet
Bank (RI), National Association ("Fleet"), pursuant to the Amended and Restated
Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated and effective as of December 1, 1993, as
amended and restated as of January 1, 2002, and further amended by Amendment
Number 1 dated as of April 1, 2002 (the "Agreement"), among Fleet, as Servicer,
Fleet Credit Card Funding Trust, as Transferor, and Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas, as Trustee, does hereby certify that:

1.  Fleet is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under
the Agreement. Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have their respective
meanings as set forth in the Agreement.

2.  The undersigned is a Servicing Officer who is duly
authorized pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to
the Trustee.

3.  A review of the activities of the Servicer during the
twelve months ended September 30, 2004, and of its performance under the
Agreement, was conducted under my supervision.

4.  Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best
of my knowledge, performed in all material respects its obligations under the
Agreement throughout the twelve months ended September 30, 2004 and no default
in the performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuing except as
set forth in paragraph 5 below.

5.  The following is a description of each default in the
performance of the Servicer's obligations under the provisions of the Agreement
known to me to have been made by the Servicer during the twelve months ended
September 30, 2004 which sets forth in detail (i) the nature of each such
default, (ii) the action taken by the Servicer, if any, to remedy each such
default and (iii) the current status of each such
default:None

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this
Certificate this 22nd day of October 2004.

FLEET BANK (RI), NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

Servicer,

By:
/s/ JOHN S. FIORAVANTI

John S.
FioravantiSenior Vice President
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 747 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 747

 To grant exclusive fishery management authority over the red snapper 
             fish in the Gulf of Mexico to certain States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 17, 2013

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To grant exclusive fishery management authority over the red snapper 
             fish in the Gulf of Mexico to certain States.

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Gulf state.--The term ``Gulf States'' means the States 
        of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.
            (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
        of Commerce.

SEC. 2. FISHERY MANAGEMENT RIGHTS.

    (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), not later than 120 days 
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall grant to 
the Gulf States exclusive fishery management authority over the red 
snapper fish (lutjanus campechanus) in the Gulf of Mexico in the area 
located between the coast line of each Gulf State and the point that is 
200 miles seaward of the coast line of each Gulf State, consistent with 
the jurisdictional limit of the exclusive economic zone.
    (b) Agreement Between Governors.--
            (1) In general.--The grant of authority under subsection 
        (a) is contingent on the condition that not later than 180 days 
        after the date on which the Secretary grants the authority, the 
        Governors of each of the Gulf States--
                    (A) agree on a fishery management plan governing 
                management of the red snapper fish (lutjanus 
                campechanus); and
                    (B) certify in writing to the Secretary that the 
                Governors have entered into that agreement.
            (2) Reversion.--If the Governors fail to enter into an 
        agreement under paragraph (1), the authority granted to the 
        Governors under subsection (a) shall revert to the Secretary.
                                 <all>
```
AGN EX 10.14 2013 12 31


Exhibit 10.14




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
ALLERGAN, INC. PENSION PLAN
(Restated 2013) 


WHEREAS, Allergan, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Allergan, Inc. Pension Plan (Restated 2013), as amended (the “Plan”);


WHEREAS, Section 10.1 of the Plan authorizes the Company, by action of the Board or its delegate, to make amendments to the Plan; and


WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the Plan to clarify certain Plan terms regarding calculation of Actuarial Equivalence.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that effective January 1, 2013, the Plan is hereby amended as follows: 


Section A.2 (a)(ii) of Appendix A (describing assumptions used in calculating Actuarial Equivalence) is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
(ii)    “Applicable Interest Rate” is the interest rate set forth in Code Section 417(e)(3) for the third full month preceding the first day of the calendar quarter in which the Annuity Starting Date occurs for Annuity Starting Dates on or after January 1, 2011; provided, however, that for Annuity Starting Dates during the 2011 Plan Year, the Applicable Interest Rate shall be either the rate under section A.2.(ii)(A) or this section A.2.(ii)(B), whichever produces the greater benefit.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this First Amendment to the Allergan, Inc. Pension Plan (Restated January 1, 2013) to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of the date set forth below.




Date:
		
	December 18, 2013
	Allergan, Inc.


/s/ Scott D. Sherman                
Scott D. Sherman
Executive Vice President, Human Resources
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Quiles, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.), rendered August 31, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant argues that the requisite intent to support his conviction of murder in the second degree was not established by legally sufficient evidence. In this regard, the defendant asserts that he had no intention of firing the shot that killed the victim and that the weapon he was holding discharged "accidentally”.

At trial, evidence was adduced to the effect that the defendant, upon the request of his accomplice Harry Cruz, carried a loaded pistol to the scene of the shooting. At the scene, the defendant and a second accomplice pummeled the victim with their fists. Then, the defendant drew the gun and, swinging his arm, hit the victim with the weapon. During this time, Cruz was shouting "Shoot him” or words to that effect. According to the victim’s sister, the defendant then aimed the gun at the victim and shot him. A ballistics expert who examined the weapon used in the shooting found that its safety mechanism was operable and that seven to seven and one-half pounds of pressure was required to pull the trigger and fire the weapon.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it *860is legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt, including the element of intent *(see, People v Cruz,*160 AD2d 893; *People v Underwood,*126 AD2d 584). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15 [5]).

"Under the circumstances of this case involving the senseless murder of an innocent victim” *(People v Cruz, supra,*at 894), the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.