alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
JOHN TATUM 990 S. Sherman

ATTORNEY AT LAW Richardson, Texas 75081 ( 972) 705-9200

March 24, 2015

Court of Criminal Appeals c/o Abel Acosta Chief Deputy Clerk P.O. Box 12308 Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711

Re: Oral argument in Cause No. AP-77,021 Naim Muhammad v. The State of Texas

Dear Mr. Acosta: I am advising this Honorable Court that I, on behalf of Appellant in the above referenced cause, am advising this court that Mr. Brady Wyatt will be assisting me in presentation of oral argument in the above referenced death penalty case set for submission on April 1, 2015. Mr. Wyatt is qualified to do death penalty cases and has been part of a defense team before in Dallas County in the defense of capital murder death penalty prosecution. He has expressed a desire to learn how to do death penalty appeals and I am giving him an opportunity to assist in the presentation of oral argument in this case. I will accompany him and be present at submission. Sincerely,

John Tatum AP,77,021 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 3/24/2015 8:37:27 PM Accepted 3/25/2015 8:55:42 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK
MOOR1VIAN TATE HALEY UPCHURCH & YATES, LLP

R. HAL MOORMAN*t STEVEN C. HALEY LAURA UPCHURCH WENDY YATES* ATTORNEYS AT LAW 207 EAST MAIN STREET BRENHAM, TEXAS 77833 P.O. BOX 1808 BRENHAM, TEXAS 77834-1808

(979) 836-5664 FAX (979) 830-0913 stww.moormantate.com BOARD CERTIFIED *ESTATE PLANNING & PROBATE LAW

tCIVIL TRIAL LAW TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION
ANDREW J. HEFFERLY CHRISTOPHER S. HARDY GEORGE R. MOORMAN (1919-2011) MILTON Y. TATE, JR. (RETIRED)

July 28, 2015

Fourth Court of Appeals Cadena-Reeves Justice Center 300 Dolorosa, Ste. 3200 San Antonio, Texas 78205-3037
RE: El Caballero Ranch, Inc. and Laredo Marine, L.L.C. v. Grace River Ranch, LLC; No. 04-15-00127CV, 4t h Judicial District, San Antonio, Texas Dear Justices of the Fourth Court of Appeals: By way of supplement of the Brief of Appellee filed herein, Grace River Ranch, LLC provides the following citations and succinct comment by way of additional authority: La Salle County Not an Indispensable Party Appellants suggest (without authority) that an injunction against Appellants interference with a public road was improper absent joinder of La Salle County as a party. A county has no proprietary interest in public roads dedicated to the public. City of Mission v. Popplewell, 294 S.W.2d 712, 715 (Tex. 1956); Hicks v. City of Houston, 524 S.W.2d 539, 545 (Tex. Civ. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1975, writ ref d.

{18705.43065-00395217.DOCX) ACCEPTED 04-15-00127-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7/29/2015 9:25:33 AM KEITH HOTTLE CLERKJuly 28, 2015

Page 2

The county is only a trustee of the public in such roads of the public interest may require. City of Mission v. Popplewell, supra at 715; Hicks v. City of Houston, supra at 545. It is not necessary that the public entity so charged as trustee with regulating and controlling a public road belonging to the public be sued as agent for the public or as trustee for the public in order for the existence of a public easement can be put n issue. ty of Fort Worth v. Taylor, 346 S.W.2d 792, 794 (Tex. 1961). Sincerely,

SCH:mb Enclosures cc: Annalyn G. S h Schmoyer Re nhard, LLP 17806 I-10W, Ste. 400 San Antonio, Texas 78257 E-mail: asmith dar-11p.corn Kimberly S. Keller Keller Stolarczyk PLLC 234 West Bandera Road, No. 120 Boerne, Texas 78006 E-mail: kimq,kellsto.com

{18705.43065-00395217.DOCX)July 28, 2015

Page 3

Donato D. Ramos, Jr. Law Offices of Donato D. Ramos 6721 McPherson P.O. Box 452009 Laredo, Texas 78045 donatoramosjr@ddrlex.corn

{18705.43065-00395217.DOCX)
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 16221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6646]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that 
members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings 
related to the transmission planning activities of the Midwest 
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO):
    Planning Advisory Committee--March 21, 2012.
    RECB Task Force--March 22, 2012.
    Order 1000--Right of First Refusal Task Team--March 23, 2012.
    The above-referenced meeting will be held at: MISO Headquarters, 
720 City Center Drive, Carmel, IN 46032.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.
    Further information may be found at www.misoenergy.org.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters 
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. ER12-715, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, 
Inc.
Docket No. ER12-480, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, 
Inc.
Docket No. ER12-309, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, 
Inc.
Docket No. ER11-1844, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, 
Inc.
Docket No. EL11-56, FirstEnergy Service Company.
Docket No. EL11-30, E.ON Climate & Renewables North America, LLC v. 
Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. OA08-53, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, 
Inc.

    For more information, contact Christopher Miller, Office of Energy 
Markets Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-
5936 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f99a918b908a8d9689919c8bd7949095959c8bb99f9c8b9ad79e968f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8deee5ffe4fef9e2fde5e8ffa3e0e4e1e1e8ffcdebe8ffeea3eae2fb">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: March 14, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6646 Filed 3-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

     Know all persons by these presents that the undersigned have made,
constituted and appointed, and BY THESE PRESENTS make, constitute and appoint
Gary S. Holter, Kenneth Batko and Linda R. Witte, true and lawful ATTORNEYS for
himself and in his name, place and stead to sign that certain Annual Report on
Form 10-K, including all exhibits thereto, which Form 10-K is to be filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about March 24, 2000, to be
executed by the undersigned in his capacity as a Director of APAC Customer
Services, Inc., and to perform any and all other acts necessary in order to
consummate such transaction, giving and granting unto Gary S. Holter, Kenneth
Batko and Linda R. Witte, said ATTORNEYS full power and authority to do and
perform all and every act and thing whatsoever, requisite and necessary to be
done in and about the premises, as fully, to all intents and purposes, as the
undersigned might or could do if personally present at the doing thereof, with
full power of substitution and revocation, hereby ratifying and confirming all
that Gary S. Holter, Kenneth Batko and Linda R. Witte, said ATTORNEYS or their
substitutes shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

         /s/   Theodore S. Schwartz
         /s/   Peter M. Leger
         /s/   Marc S. Simon
         /s/   Thomas M. Collins
         /s/   George D. Dalton
         /s/   Paul G. Yovovich
#### Walter THOMPSON v. James RAYFORD, et al.

No. 89-CC-0043.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1989.

In re Prudential Prop./Cas. Ins. Co.;— Defendants); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “L”, No. 84-19994; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 88CW-2399.

Denied.

MARCUS, J., would grant the writ.
#### STATE of Louisiana, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. CR88-585.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

March 15, 1989.

Billy J. Harrington, Harrington & Harrington, Natchitoches, for defendant-appellant.

Michael Henry, Dist. Atty., Natchitoches, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before GUIDRY, LABORDE and KING, JJ.

LABORDE, Judge.

On April 26, 1988, defendant, Bobby Walker, pled guilty to the Crime of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, a violation of La.R.S. 14:95.1. He received a sentence of three years at hard labor with credit for time served. Defendant now appeals requesting that we review the record for errors patent.

FACTS

Defendant, a convicted felon, was involved in an altercation with Charlotte Gal-lien, an employee, in a store in Campti, Louisiana. Ms. Gallien called the police and defendant left the store. However, defendant returned to the store shortly af-terwards. The police arrived and found that defendant possessed a firearm. Defendant was arrested and charged with illegal possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and with aggravated assault. Defendant pled guilty to the weapons charge and the assault charge was dismissed.

*1273REVIEW FOR ERRORS PATENT

Defendant requests only that we review the record for errors patent. Defendant was present at all critical stages of the proceedings. He was charged by a bill of information signed by the district attorney. He was represented by counsel who negotiated a plea bargain on his behalf. He pled guilty after complete Boykinization and received a sentence in full compliance with his plea agreement. In fact, he received a sentence of three years at hard;iabor, the minimum sentence under R.Sy 14:95.1. Also, the aggravated assault charge was dismissed. After reviewing the record, we find no errors patent on its face. Defendant’s conviction based upon his guilty plea and his sentence are thus affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: RSM Production Corporation and Jack Grynberg v. Global Petroleum Group, Ltd, Tricon Geophysics, Inc., Seabird Exploration Americas, Inc., and Blackwater Subsea, LLC

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00474

- CV

Trial court case number: 2013

- 74337

Trial court: 189th District Court of Harris County

A ppellant s
, RSM Production Corporation and Jack Grynberg, have filed a M otion to A bate

the B riefing D eadlines until the district clerk files a supplemental clerk’s record. Appellants state in their motion that they requested a supplemental clerk’s record fr om the district clerk contemporaneously with their motion to abate filed in this Court. Appellants’ motion to abate is

DENIED.

Appellants’ brief remains due on October 25, 2019. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a). If appellants need additional time to file their brief because of their request for a supplemental clerk’s record, they may file a motion to extend time under Rule 38.6(d). See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d). All motions filed in this Court shall comply with Rule 10.1(a)(5), which requires motions to “contain or be accompanied by a certificate stating that the filing party conferred, or made a reasonable attempt to confer, with all other parties about the merits of the motion and whether those parties oppose the motion.” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.1(a)(5) (emphasis added).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: ___ October 17, 2019

____
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4368

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARIO CEDILLOS-GUZMAN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District

Judge. (1:06-cr-00501-LMB)

Submitted: September 13, 2007 Decided: September 18, 2007

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Anne M. Chapman,

Meghan Skelton, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, Alexandria,

Virginia, for Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney,

Olivia Hussey, Special Assistant United States Attorney,

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Mario Cedillos-Guzman pled guilty to one count of

possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of 18

U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5); 924(a)(2) (2000). Cedillos-Guzman was sentenced

by the district court to twelve months’ imprisonment. Finding no

error, we affirm.

On appeal, Cedillos-Guzman contends his sentence is

unreasonable because the district court failed to give proper weight

to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) factors, as well as provide a statement

of reasons for selecting a twelve-month sentence. However, the

district court appropriately calculated the advisory guideline range

and considered it in conjunction with other relevant factors under

the Guidelines and § 3553(a). See United States v. Moreland, 437

F.3d 424, 432-33 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006).

Cedillos-Guzman’s twelve-month sentence, which is at the lowest end

of the applicable guideline range and below the statutory maximum, is

therefore presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Green, 436

F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006); see

also Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-65 (2007). Though

the court concededly failed to explicitly discuss § 3553(a) factors

on the record, we conclude it does not render Cedillos-Guzman’s

sentence unreasonable. See Rita, 127 S. Ct. at 2468-69; United

States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). We note that
- 3 -

the court heard extensive arguments from the parties relating to the

potential applicability of § 3553(a) factors.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We deny as moot Cedillos-Guzman’s motion to remand. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# EUR-Lex - 32006M4335 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 32006M4335

**Commission Decision of 03/11/2006 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.4335 - DIEHL / THALES / JV) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (Only the English text is authentic) **

*

*

Brussels, 03.11.2006

SG-Greffe(2006) D/206605

To the notifying parties

Dear Madam(s) and/or Sir(s),

Subject: Case No. COMP/M.4335 – Diehl / Thales / JV

Notification of 4.10.2006 pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 [1]

Publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities No. C 246, dated 13/10/2006, page 21.

1. On 4.10.2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which the undertaking Thales S.A. (“Thales”, France) and Diehl Stiftung & Co. KG (“Diehl”, Germany) acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control over part of the undertakings TDA Armements SAS (France), Thales Munitronic BV (The Netherlands), Forges de Zeebrugge (Belgium), currently controlled by Thales, and over the undertaking Junghans Feinwerktechnik GmbH & Co KG (Germany), currently controlled by Diehl, by way of contribution of assets in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

- for Thales: defence, aerospace and civilian security technology. For the assets conferred to the Joint Venture: production and sales of fuzes and safety and arming devices;

- for Diehl: metals, controls, and defence and aviation For the assets conferred to the Joint Venture: production and sales of fuzes and safety and arming devices.

3. After examination of the notification, the Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004 and of paragraph 5, subparagraph b, of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [2].

4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the common market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 139/2004.

For the Commission

signed

Philip LOWE

Director General

[1] OJ L 24, 29.1.2004 p. 1.

[2] OJ C 56, 05.3.2005 p.32.

--------------------------------------------------
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7106

JOHN R. TAYLOR, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus CAPTAIN JOHNSON, Shift Supervisor at Pasquotank Co rrectional Institution; LIEUTENANT GATLING, Lieutenant at Pasquotank Correctional Institution; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BOCA, Correctional Officer at Pasquotank Correctional Institution; D. M. TODD, Assistant Unit Manager at Pasquotank Correctional Institution; THOMAS W. STRAHAN, Superintendent of Programs at Pasquotank Correctional Institution; GEROTHA R. SPAIN, Inmate Grievance Examiner at Pasquotank Correctional Institution, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-294-5-BO) Submitted: August 28, 2003 Decided: September 10, 2003 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 John R. Taylor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: John R. Taylor, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) c omplaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Taylor v. Johnson , No. CA-03-294-5-BO (E.D.N.C. June 26, 2003). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                       1,443,000
<SECURITIES>                                 8,219,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,034,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (51,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    552,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,562,000
<PP&E>                                       4,540,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               (797,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,838,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,358,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        68,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,298,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,838,000
<SALES>                                     12,767,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,767,000
<CGS>                                        4,594,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,060,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,437,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,068,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,369,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,369,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.47


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





This certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Form 10-Q”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 of China Clean Energy Inc. (the “Company”).  I, Tai-ming Ou, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that, based on my knowledge:





(1)
The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods covered in this report.





Date: May 23, 2011

By:
/s/ Tai-ming OuName:
Tai-ming OuTitle:
President and Chief Executive Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.