alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 19

- 00036

- CR

COREY DEWAYNE WILBERT, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 76th District Court Camp County, Texas Trial Court No. CF

- 17

- 01787

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.2 O R D E R Corey Dewayne Wilbert has filed an appeal from a judgment of conviction entered by the 76th Judicial District Court of Camp County. Wilbert retained Clay Dean Thomas to represent him on appeal, but Thomas has filed a motion to withdraw with this Court averring that Wilbert no longer desires his services. Thomas’ motion satisfied the requirements of Rule 6.5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, and we hereby grant the motion to withdraw. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 6.5. In light of these circumstances, we abate this case to the trial court so that it may conduct whatever hearings are necessary to make the following determinatio ns: (1) whether Wilbert still desires to prosecute this appeal and, if so, (2) whether Wilbert is indigent and entitled to the appointment of counsel to represent him on appeal. If Wilbert is determined to be indigent, then the trial court shall appoint counsel to represent him on appeal. The trial court may enter any orders necessary to implement these directives. Any hearing shall be conducted by the trial court within fifteen days of the date of this order. Appropriate orders and findings shall be s ent to this Court in the form of a supplemental clerk’s record within ten days of the date of the hearing contemplated by this order. The reporter’ record of any hearing shall be filed with this Court within ten days of the date of the hearing contemplate d by this order. All appellate timetables are stayed and will resume on our receipt of the supplemental appellate record.3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT
Date: March 20, 2019
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In accordance with18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, Michael R. Boyce, Chief Executive Officer of PQ Corporation (the “Registrant”)and James P. Cox, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,each hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.                 theRegistrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31,2006, to which this Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “PeriodicReport”), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;

2.                 Theinformation contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition of the Registrant at the end of the periodcovered by the Periodic Report and results of operations of the Registrant forthe periods covered by the Periodic Report.

Date: June 23,2006
|        | By:    | /s/ MICHAEL R.  BOYCE                      |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Michael R. Boyce                           |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer                    |
|   |   |                                       |
|   |   |                                       |
|   |   |                                       |
|   | By:    | /s/ JAMES P.  COX                          |
|   |   | James P. Cox                               |
|   |   | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
II 

Calendar No. 196 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1825 

To extend the authority for relocation expenses test programs for Federal 

employees, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 21, 2009 

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Ms. COLLINS, and Mr. AKAKA) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

NOVEMBER 4, 2009 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

A BILL 

To extend the authority for relocation expenses test programs 

for Federal employees, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. RELOCATION EXPENSES TEST PROGRAMS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5739 of title 5, United 

5 States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (3); 

7 (2) in subsection (b)— 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1825 RS

1 (A) by inserting ‘‘or extended’’ after ‘‘ap2 proved’’; and 

3 (B) by inserting ‘‘or extension’’ after ‘‘of 

4 the program’’; 

5 (3) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the 

6 following: 

7 ‘‘(c)(1) An agency authorized to conduct a test pro8 gram under subsection (a) shall annually submit a report 

9 on the results of the program to date to the Administrator. 

10 ‘‘(2) Not later than 3 months after completion of a 

11 test program, the agency conducting the program shall 

12 submit a final report on the results of the program to the 

13 Administrator and the appropriate committees of Con14 gress.’’; 

15 (4) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘10’’ and in16 serting ‘‘12’’; and 

17 (5) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the 

18 following: 

19 ‘‘(e)(1) The Administrator may not approve any test 

20 program for an initial period of more than 4 years. 

21 ‘‘(2)(A) Upon the request of the agency admin22 istering a test program, the Administrator may extend the 

23 program. 

24 ‘‘(B) An extension under subparagraph (A) may not 

25 exceed 4 years. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1825 RS

1 ‘‘(C) The Administrator may exercise more than 1 

2 extension under subparagraph (A) with respect to any test 

3 program.’’. 

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect 

5 on October 31, 2009. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 196 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1825 

A BILL 

To extend the authority for relocation expenses test 

purposes. programs for Federal employees, and for other 

NOVEMBER 4, 2009 

Reported without amendment 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
MEMORANDUM

Date: August 12, 2015

Subject: Summary of discussion from the July 15, 2015, meeting between API representatives and the Environmental Protection Agency on oil and gas rules, including source determination

From: Cheryl Vetter , EPA/OAQPS/AQPD / NSRG

To: EPA Docket ID: EPA

- HQ

- OAR -2013-0685

I. PURPOSE

This memorandum summarizes the July 15, 2015 meeting between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and representatives of the American Petroleum Institute (API ). The purpose of the meeting was to listen to API’s input on oil and gas rules in development.

II. DATE

The meeting occurred from 9:00 am to 12:00 p m EDT July 15, 2015 , at EPA Headquarters offices in Research Triangle Park, NC

.

III. ATTENDEES

The following individu als participated in the meeting :

API members/representatives
Greg Johnston, Chesapeake Energy

Jeff Adams (BP)

Shankar Anarthakrishna, Chevron

Rober Ferry, TGB Partnership
Grover Campbell, Devon Energy

Tom Monahan, XTO

Mark Barera, Williams

Matt Todd, API

Jim Cooper, Chesapeake

Kimberly Coy, Shell

John Wagner, API

Jenny Yang, Conoco Phillips

Jason Zapalac, Anadarko2 Adam Berig, Encana

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Bruce Moore. OAQPS Cheryl Vetter , OAQPS

David Cozzie , OAQPS Lisa Thompson , OAQPS Denise Grubert, ERM Matthew Witosky, EPA Amy Hambrick, EPA Jodi Howard, EPA

IV. SUMMARY OF DI SCUSSION

The meeting was primarily for API to provide their recommendations on the revisions to the NSPS. Representatives of API and its member companies did ask questions about the timing of the source determination rule. Ms. Vetter responded that the source determination rule would be released in conjunction with the other oil and gas rules. Representatives of API and its member companies also asked specific questions about the content of the rule. Ms. Vetter assured them that they would have the opportunity to raise these issues during the public comment period.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 155 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 155

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to suspend the taxation of 
                 unemployment compensation for 2 years.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 6, 2009

 Ms. Snowe (for herself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Bunning) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                                Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to suspend the taxation of 
                 unemployment compensation for 2 years.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Unemployment Benefit Tax Suspension 
Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF TAX ON UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.

    (a) In General.--Section 85 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
(relating to unemployment compensation) is amended by adding at the end 
the following new subsection:
    ``(c) Temporary Suspension.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to 
taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007, and before January 1, 
2010.''.
                                 <all>
```
DENY and Opinion Filed July 5, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-22-00422-CV IN RE B.D. AND T.M.D., Relators Original Proceeding from the 304th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. JC-20-00439-W

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein Opinion by Justice Goldstein In their May 2, 2022 petition for writ of mandamus, relator foster parents challenge the trial court’s final order in the underlying suit affec ting the parent-child relationship. They also complain about the tr ial court’s denial of their request for an ex parte temporary restraining order prev enting the court-appointed conservators from gaining possession of or access to the subject child. Based on our review of the petition and record, we conclude that this Court lacks jurisdiction over this original proceedi ng. To start, relator foster parents lack standing to challenge the final judgment becau se they failed to intervene before the final judgment was signed. See First Alief Bank v. White , 682 S.W.2d 251, 252 (Tex. 1984) (noting that plea in intervention co mes too late if filed after judgment); In re–2– H.G. , 267 S.W.3d 120, 122, n. 1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, orig. proceeding) (noting that there was no pending suit in wh ich appellants could intervene once final divorce decree was entered). Further, becau se the trial court’s plenary jurisdiction has now expired, this Court has no power to compel the trial cour t to vacate the final judgment. See Elec. Reliability Council of Tex ., Inc. v. Panda Power Generation Infrastructure Fund, LLC , 619 S.W.3d 628, 639 (Tex. 2021) (noting that original proceeding is moot because supreme court is unable to provide re lief relators seek and any order it issues would be without practical effect). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus. We also lift the stay issued by our May 3, 2022 order.

220422F.P05 /Bonnie Lee Goldstein/ /Bonnie Lee Goldstein/ JUSTICE
#### STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Peter L. PROSPER, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 860290.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Feb. 13, 1987.

Randall W. Richards, Ogden, for defendant and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Kimberly Hornak, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

*Memorandum of Decision*

PER CURIAM:

In 1981, defendant pleaded guilty to forgery, a second degree felony. At sentencing, he was given probation on condition that he pay a $1,000 fine and $402.46 in restitution. When he admitted his noncompliance with these conditions in 1986, his probation was revoked, and he received a reduced sentence of one to five years’ imprisonment.

On appeal from this sentence, defendant’s appointed counsel filed an *Anders*brief1 and a request to withdraw on the ground that there was no arguable legal issue. Defendant was provided with a copy of the brief filed on his behalf, and no additional arguments or issues have been separately raised by him. He has filed nothing with this Court.

We have carefully reviewed the record below and find no error. Defendant raises no cognizable issue on appeal that is properly supported by the record of the proceedings below. His general claim that he was wrongfully sentenced is without merit. *State v. Rodriguez,*718 P.2d 395 (Utah 1986). We conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous and affirm his conviction. In view thereof, we also grant the motion of counsel to withdraw.

Defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed on the merits.

1

. *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); *State*v. *Clayton,*639 P.2d 168 (Utah 1981).
**EXHIBIT 99.7**

 

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

 

March 19, 2004

 

Mr. Daniel M. Scully, Jr.

U.S. Bank National Association

Corporate Trust Services

One Federal Street

3rd Floor

Boston, MA 02110

 

Dear Mr. Scully:

 

In accordancewith Section 9.9 of the Indenture Agreement dated October 1, 1995, betweenCRIIMI MAE Financial Corporation as Issuer and U.S. Bank National Associationas successor to the trust business of State Street Bank & Trust Company, Icertify that review of the activities of the Issuer for the period January 1,2003 to December 31, 2003 and of the Issuer’s performance under this IndentureAgreement has been made under my supervision. To the best of my knowledge,based on such review, the Issuer has fulfilled all of its obligations underthis Indenture Agreement.

 

 
|   | Sincerely,                                                    |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                          |
|   |                                                          |
|   | /s/ Cynthia  O. Azzara                                        |   |
|   | By:  Cynthia  O. Azzara                             |
|   | Executive  Vice President  Chief Financial Officer  Treasurer |

 

----
SERVED: AprillO, 2017 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS OEPeRSTP~~~JrPJN WASHINGTON, DC TRAn 

znn APR '2 A ~ oq 

In The Matter Of: ) nOCKET OPERPJ\ONS 

) Docket No. FAA-2016-4269 

V ANAIR MANUFACTURING, INC. ) 

) Case No. 2014-GL-70-0045 

Respondent ) 

ORDER DISMISSING PROCEEDING 

On August 31, 2016, an Order Setting Litigation Dates and Procedures was filed. Among 

other things, this Order set a Motion Conference, or in the absence of motions a Pre-Hearing 

Status Conference, for April11, 2017; a Motion Conference for June 27, 2017; and the Hearing 

for July 19-20,2017. 

On April 7, 2017, the Respondent's Notice of Withdrawal of Request for Hearing was 

filed. 

After having reviewed the case file, all pleadings and motions, all relevant caselaw, 

statutes, regulations, rules, and authority, and being fully advised; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. The Pre-Hearing Status Conference set for April11, 2017, is cancelled. 

2. The Motion Conference set for June 27, 2017, is cancelled. 

3. The Hearing set for July 19 - 20, 2017, is cancelled. 

4. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.215, the Respondent has withdrawn its Request for Hearing, 

and this proceeding is dismissed with prejudice. 

Attachments: Service List 
Docket No. FAA-2016-4269 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 ooo1 

Ms. Kate Barber 

Complainant's Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Enforcement Division, Midwest Team 

2300 East Devon A venue 

Des Plaines, IL 60601 

TEL: 847-294-7862 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

Mr. John Hoff 

Mr. Jared A. Schneider 

Respondent's Counsel 

ONE COPY 

Cremer, Spina, Shaughnessy, Jansen & Siegert, LLC 

One North Franklin Street, 1oth Floor 

Chicago, IL 60606 

TEL: 312-726-3800 

FAX: 312-726-3818 

Judge J.E. Sullivan 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-6941 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.
NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON File Na me: 09a0689n.06 Nos. 07-1801, 07-1802, 07- 1805 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
In re: KEN

NETH M. MI TAN, Debtor, KENNET H M. MI TAN, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. CH ARL ES J. T AU

NT ; JERO ME F . CO RR; FRAND ORSON PROERTI ES; L EONARD A. DUVAL ; HEI

NZ RODE, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STRI CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

/ B e fo re : MA RTI

N, RO GE RS, a

nd CO OK , Ci rc uit

Judg e s. PER C URIAM. In this consolidated appea l, Kenne th Mitan takes issue with the district
cou r t’ s a f firmanc es of the ba

nkruptcy court’s grants of summar

y judgme nt to the defe ndants. Having revie wed the briefs and r ecor ds in these ca ses, w e co n cu r wit h the district court’s w ell-re asoned opinions and AF F IRMthose judg men t s. Mi tan v . Ta un t, No. 06-15114, 2007 WL1424225 (E .D .M ic h. May

10 , 2 00 7) ; Mi tan v . Co rr, e t al

. , No. 06-15115, 2007 WL1452935 (E.D.Mich. Ma y 10, 2007); and Mitan v. Duv al, et al., No. 06-15116, 2007 WL1452940 (E.D.Mich. Ma y 10, 2007).
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of the iShares® S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust (the Trust) and iShares® S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Investing Pool
LLC (the Investing Pool) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lee T. Kranefuss, Chief Executive Officer of
Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Trust and Manager of the Investing Pool, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Trust and Investing
Pool.

Date: November 7, 2008



|                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Lee T. Kranefuss                                                    
|Lee T. Kranefuss * Chief Executive Officer (Principal executive officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and the Co-Registrant is a limited liability company and Mr. Kranefuss is signing in his capacity as an officer of Barclays Global Investors
International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Registrant and Manager of the Co-Registrant.
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1521 

To amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to require provider 

payments under Medicare and Medicaid to be made through direct deposit or electronic funds transfer (EFT) at insured depository institutions. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 28, 2009 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. MARTINEZ) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act 

to require provider payments under Medicare and Medicaid to be made through direct deposit or electronic 

funds transfer (EFT) at insured depository institutions. 

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 ‘‘Improving Medicare5 Medicaid Payment Policy for Reimbursement through 

6 Oversight and Efficiency Act of 2009’’ or the ‘‘IMPROVE 

7 Act of 2009’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1521 IS

1 SEC. 2. REQUIRING PROVIDER AND SUPPLIER PAYMENTS 

2 UNDER MEDICARE AND MEDICAID TO BE 

3 MADE THROUGH DIRECT DEPOSIT OR ELEC4 TRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER (EFT) AT INSURED 

5 DEPOSITORY INSTITUTIONS. 

6 (a) MEDICARE.—Section 1874 of the Social Security 

7 Act (42 U.S.C. 1395kk) is amended by adding at the end 

8 the following new subsection: 

9 ‘‘(e) LIMITATION ON PAYMENT TO PROVIDERS OF

10 SERVICES AND SUPPLIERS.—No payment shall be made 

11 under this title for items and services furnished by a pro12 vider of services or supplier unless each payment to the 

13 provider of services or supplier is in the form of direct 

14 deposit or electronic funds transfer to the provider of serv15 ices’ or supplier’s account, as applicable, at a depository 

16 institution (as defined in section 19(b)(1)(A) of the Fed17 eral Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(1)(A))).’’. 

18 (b) MEDICAID.—Section 1903(d) of such Act (42 

19 U.S.C. 1396b(d)) is amended by adding at the end the 

20 following new paragraph: 

21 ‘‘(7) Payment shall be made to a State under sub22 section (a) for expenditures made by the State for pay23 ment for items and services furnished by a provider or 

24 supplier of items or services under this title if each pay25 ment by the State to the provider or supplier is in the 

26 form of direct deposit or electronic funds transfer to the 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1521 IS

1 provider’s or supplier’s account, as applicable, at a deposi2 tory institution (as defined in section 19(b)(1)(A) of the 

3 Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(1)(A))).’’. 

4 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

5 this section shall apply to each payment made to a pro6 vider of services, provider, or supplier on or after such 

7 date (not later than 60 days after the date of the enact8 ment of this Act) as the Secretary of Health and Human 

9 Services shall specify, regardless of when the items and 

10 services for which such payment is made were furnished. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS