alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 13, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-19-00354-CR

ALVIS JACKSON III, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 26th District Court 

Williamson County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 16-0849-K26 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

This attempted appeal is from an order of dismissal. Such an order is not 

appealable. In Texas, appeals in criminal cases are permitted only when they are 

authorized by statute. State ex rel. Lykos, 330 S.W.3d 904, 915 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2011); see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.02. Generally, a criminal defendant may 

appeal only from a final judgment. See State v. Sellers, 790 S.W.2d 316, 321 n. 4 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1990). A “final judgment” is a “final judgment of conviction,” 

which is defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure as “the written declaration of 
2

the court signed by the trial judge and entered of record showing the conviction or 

acquittal of the defendant.” Raley v. State, 441 S.W.3d 647, 650 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, pet ref’d.); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.01 § 1. The 

State filed a motion to dismiss the case against the defendant, which the trial court 

granted. 

Because this appeal does not fall within the exceptions to the general rule that 

an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment of conviction, we have no 

jurisdiction. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
391 A.2d 710

#### Niesenbaum et al., Appellants, v. Bernstein, Bernstein & Harrison, Esquires, et al.

Argued March 29, 1978.

Jay I. Bomze, with him Zarwin, Baum, Arangio & Ross, for appellants; David Smith, with him Dennis R. Suplee and James D. Crawford, for appellees.

Order affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,142
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,447
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,329
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          89,766
<DEPRECIATION>                                  50,784
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  59,009
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,909
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    59,009
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                22,120
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,799
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,109
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,119)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,119)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,119)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.168

                                   ASSIGNMENT



         KNOW ALL THESE MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:

         THIS ASSIGNMENT is made and entered into by and between NuOasis Gaming,
Inc.,  a Delaware  corporation  ("Assignor"),  and Nona  Morelli's  II,  Inc., a
Colorado corporation ("Assignee").

         WITNESSETH:  That for and in  Consideration  of Ten  Dollars  ($10) and
other  good  and  valuable  consideration,   the  receipt  of  which  is  hereby
acknowledged, Assignor hereby bargains, sells, grants and conveys unto Assignee,
all of  Assignor's  right,  title and interest in the Seven Million five Hundred
Thousand  (7,500,000)  shares of common  stock of Casino  Management  of America
Inc.,  a Utah  corporation  (the  "CMA  shares"),  to have and to hold  forever.
Assignor warrants that it has the power and authority,  and does hereby sell and
transfer the CMA Shares to Assignee.

         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I have  caused  this  instrument  to be  executed
effective the 5th day of May 1997.

                              "Assignor"
                              NuOasis Gaming, Inc., a Delaware corporation

                              By:  /S/       JOSEPH MONTEROSSO
                                   --------------------------------------------
                                   Name:     Joseph Monterosso

                                                         1
The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge 1

for the Eastern District of Missouri.

___________

No. 95-2871

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri.

Yoganand Premachandra, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: March 5, 1996

 Filed: March 8, 1996

___________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Yoganand Premachandra, a federal inmate, appeals the district

court's order denying his motion for a medical furlough, and his

1

subsequent motions for reconsideration. We affirm.

We agree with the district court that 18 U.S.C. § 3622 vests

authority to grant medical furloughs with the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), not

the federal courts. See 18 U.S.C. § 3622(a)(3) ("The Bureau of Prisons may

release a prisoner from . . . imprisonment for a limited period . . .

to—(a) visit a designated place for a period not to exceed thirty days

. . . for the purpose of— . . . (3) obtaining medical treatment not

otherwise available."). We note that the BOP provides both medical

furloughs and escorted medical trips. See 28 C.F.R. § 570 subpts. C & D

(1995). 
-2-

To the extent Premachandra suggests 28 U.S.C. § 2241 would permit a

federal court to grant the relief he seeks, see Prushinowski v. Hanbrick,

570 F. Supp. 863, 869 (E.D. N.C. 1983); Bartling v. Ciccone, 376 F. Supp.

200, 203, 205 (W.D. Mo. 1974), we note that Premachandra is incarcerated

outside the Eastern District of Missouri. See United States v. Hutchings,

835 F.2d 185, 186-87 (8th Cir. 1987) (§ 2241 petition must be brought in

district where prisoner is incarcerated). 

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### STATE ex rel. Freddie CANNON v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 86-KH-2010.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 19, 1987.

In re Cannon, Freddie; applying for supervisory writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “I”, Nos. 273-251, 273-094, and 273-307.

Denied.
**Exhibit** **32.1**

 

**Certification of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of HyperSpace Communications, Inc. (the “*Company*”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

(i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 (the “*Report*”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 

|            | /s/ John P. Yeros                    |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------|
| August 14, 2006 | John P. Yeros                        |
|            | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |
ORIGINALINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHESTATEOFMONTANAPR22-0005INRETHEMOTIONOFPAULROBINSCHEELEFORADMISSIONTOTHEBAROFTHESTATEOFMONTANALAPR052022BowenGreenwoodClerkofSupremeCourtStateofNinnten;ORDERPaulRobinScheelehasfiledamotionforadmissiontotheBaroftheStateofMontanapursuanttoRuleVoftheRulesforAdmission,AdmissiononMotion.TheBarAdmissionsAdministratoroftheStateBarofMontanahasinformedtheCourtthattheCommissiononCharacterandFitnesshascertifiedthatScheelehasprovidedthenecessarydocumentationandhassatisfiedtherequirementsprerequisitetoadmissiononmotionunderRuleV.Therefore,ITISHEREBYORDEREDthatuponpaymentofanyapplicationfeesandcompletionofanyotherprocessingrequirementsassetforthbytheBarAdmissionsAdministrator,PaulRobinScheelemaybeswornintothepracticeoflawintheStateofMontana.ArrangementsforswearinginmaybemadebycontactingtheofficeoftheClerkoftheMontanaSupremeCourt.TheClerkisdirectedtoprovidecopiesofthisordertoPetitionerandtotheStateBarofMontana.Y_,\r>DATEDthisdayofApril,2022.ChiefJustice04/05/2022Case Number: PR 22-0005(/%4°.4C2i414ftft.Justices2
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19
- 6751

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ENRIQUE GARCIA BURGOS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. ( 4:16

- cr - 00579

- RBH

- 2 ; 4:18

- cv 02806

- RBH )

Submitted : August 20, 2019 Decided: August 23, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Enrique Garcia Burgos , Appellant Pro Se

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Enrique Garcia Bu rgos seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on
proc edural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the r ecord and conclude that Burgos has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the material s before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302(a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Samuel Masucci, III, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the MacroShares $100 Oil Down Trust;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state  a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a.

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b.

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c.

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors, the board of managers of Macro Securities Depositor, LLC, and the audit committee of MacroMarkets LLC (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a.

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves persons who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: February 17, 2009

| |  |  |                                                              
| |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  | /s/ SAMUEL MASUCCI, III                                      
| |  |  | Samuel Masucci, III                                          
| |  |  | Chief Executive Officer of Depositor,
on behalf of Registrant
#### STATE ex rel. Kelvin Ray SMITH v. Frank C. BLACKBURN, Warden.

No. 88-KH-0203.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 26, 1988.

In re Smith, Kelvin Ray; applying for writ of mandamus, supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “L”, No. 2-80-296.

Denied. Moot. Relator has been provided with the transcript.
HPMSVtypeID yearID HPMSBaseYearVMT baseYearOffNetVMT

10 2024 43842340 0

20 2024 6512395700 0

30 2024 4000867200 0

40 2024 21590480 0

50 2024 248690560 0

60 2024 488238600 0
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 103 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 103

Honoring The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 
  for its 135 years of service to the people of the United States and 
                             their animals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2001

Mrs. Maloney of New York submitted the following concurrent resolution; 
           which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Honoring The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 
  for its 135 years of service to the people of the United States and 
                             their animals.

Whereas April 10, 2001, is the 135th anniversary of the founding of The American 
        Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (``ASPCA'');
Whereas ASPCA has provided services to millions of people and their animals 
        since its establishment in 1866 in New York City by Henry Bergh;
Whereas ASPCA was the first humane society established in the western 
        hemisphere;
Whereas ASPCA teaches children the character-building virtues of compassion, 
        kindness, and respect for all God's creatures;
Whereas the dedicated directors, staff, and volunteers of ASPCA have provided 
        shelter, medical care, behavioral counseling, and placement for 
        abandoned, abused, or homeless animals in the United States for more 
        than a century; and
Whereas ASPCA, through its observance of April as Prevention of Cruelty to 
        Animals Month and its promotion of humane animal programs on the 
        subjects of law enforcement, education, shelter outreach, poison 
        control, legislative affairs, counseling, veterinary services, and 
        behavioral training, has provided invaluable services to the people of 
        the United States and their animals: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. HONORING THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY 
              TO ANIMALS.

    (a) In General.--Congress honors The American Society for the 
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for its 135 years of service to the 
people of the United States and their animals.
    (b) Transmittal.--The Clerk of the House of Representatives shall 
transmit an enrolled copy of this concurrent resolution to the 
president of The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to 
Animals.
                                 <all>
```
Order entered February 7, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00636-CR

CEDRIC DERRELL MILLAGE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 366-80247-07

ORDER

Appellant’s January 31, 2013 motion to stay the briefing schedule is GRANTED to the 

extent we ORDER Official Court Reporter Janet L. Dugger to file, within THIRTY days of the 

date of this order, either a supplemental reporter’s record of the pretrial hearings and the first 

trial conducted in this case or else a letter certifying that no such records exist.

We EXTEND the time to file appellant’s brief until SIXTY days from the date of this 

order.

WE DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order by electronic 

transmission to Janet L. Dugger.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 10.12

                                    AMENDMENT

         This Amendment (the "Amendment") is made and entered into effective
July 13, 2005 (the "Effective Date"), by and among American Consolidated
Management Group, Inc., a Utah corporation with its principal offices at 714
Fairview Road, Greenville, SC 29651 ("Company"). and Nu Specialty Foods Group,
L.L.C., a North Carolina limited liability company ("Vendor"), with its
principal offices at P.O. Box 1179, Graham, N.C. 27253.

                                    RECITALS

         The Company and Vendor have heretofore entered into that certain
Agreement concerning certain purchasing and exclusivity rights for the Company's
product known as Sunutra(TM). The Company and Vendor have agreed to amend said
agreement as regards certain provisions of Section 2.1

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the respective
representations, warranties, covenants and agreements contained herein, the
parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

         Section 2.1 of the original agreement is amended insofar, and only
insofar as the date of the initial payment is concerned. In lieu of the June 1,
2005 date, the original agreement shall hereinafter read that Vendor shall make
a payment of $25,000.00 effective the date of this Amendment, with an additional
payment of $25,000.00 on, or before August 15, 2005, and a final payment of
$57,848.00 on, or before September 30, 2005. Except as specifically amended
herein, the original agreement shall remain in full force and effect as
originally written.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective
this 13th day of July, 2005.

"Company"                                    "Vendor"



By: /s/ George Mappin                        By: /s/ Darryl L. Webb
    --------------------------                   -----------------------------
     George Mappin                               Darryl L. Webb
     Director
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711 

OCT 0 8 2015 

MEMORANDUM 

OFFICE OF 

AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

AND STANDARDS 

SUBJECT: TSD Data Table Errata, Page 27 of Docket Id No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0310-

0027 

FROM: 

Air 

George 

Quality 

M. Bridgers

Modeling 

, EPA 

Group

Model 

, C439-01 

Clearinghouse 

~ 

Director 

C)n . 

~ 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards JU-, D 

TO: Proposed Regulatory Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-20 15-0310 

At the time of submission of the "Technical Support Document (TSD) for Replacement of 

CALINE3 with AERMOD for Transportation Related Air Quality Analyses" to the Docket, data 

for the table on Page 27 of the TSD was inadvertently inserted from the CAL3QHC model 

execution with the "rural " option rather than the "urban" option. To correctly match the 

comparison with the AERMOD model execution, the CAL3QHC model data should have 

reflected execution with the "urban" option. This was an error that was made in the final 

document assembly and does not alter the conclusion of the Technical Support Document. 

The corrected data table is attached to this memorandum. Please substitute the attached page for 

Page 27 of the "Technical Support Document (TSD) for Replacement of CALINE3 with 

AERMOD for Transportation Related Air Quality Analyses" document, Docket ID No. EPAHQ-OAR-2015-0310-0027. 

cc: Richard Wayland, C304-02 

Tyler Fox, C439-01 

EPA SCRAM Website, 11th Conference on Air Quality Modeling Informational Webpage 

Attachments: Corrected Page 27 

Recycled/Recyclable •Printed wtth Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer) 
Modeled Concentrations of CO (CAL3QHC vs. AERMOD)

Model Scenario CAL3QHC

(ppm)

CAL3QHC

(μg/m3)

AERMOD

(μg/m3)

CAL3QHC Meteorology

CAL3QHC: Mix Ht = 1000 m, Ws = 1 m/s, Stability = 5

AERMOD: Mix Ht = 992 m, Ws = 1 m/s, L = 572.5 m

1.6 1832.0 706.0

CAL3QHC Meteorology (w/ MAKEMET Ws)

CAL3QHC: Mix Ht = 1000 m, Ws = 10 m/s, Stability = 5

AERMOD: Mix Ht = 992 m, Ws = 10 m/s, L = 572.5 m

0.5 572.5 563.0

Highly Stable (Night)

CAL3QHC: Mix Ht = 57 m, Ws = 1 m/s, Stability = 6

AERMOD: Mix Ht = 57 m, Ws = 1 m/s, L = 3.3 m

2.3 2633.5 4,088.7

Moderately Unstable (Day)

CAL3QHC: Mix Ht = 645 m, Ws = 2 m/s, Stability = 2

AERMOD: Mix Ht = 645 m, Ws = 2 m/s, L = -3.4 m

0.4 458.0 714.6

Table 1 - Results of CAL3QHC and AERMOD CO screening tests