alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00291-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF FRANCES

PHILLIPS, AN ALLEGED

INCAPACITATED PERSON

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

FROM PROBATE COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2014-GD00198-2

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

NO. 02-14-00315-CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE

GUARDIANSHIP OF EDWIN

WOOLEY, AN ALLEGED

INCAPACITATED PERSON

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

FROM PROBATE COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 2014-GD00251-2

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

FILE COPY
------------

ORDER

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

We have considered the “Motion Of Amicus Curiae To Participate In Oral

Argument” filed by Terry W. Hammond in cause number 02-14-00291-CV and

“Appellee’s Motion For Additional Time For Oral Argument” filed in cause

numbers 02-14-00291-CV and 02-14-315-CV. The motions are GRANTED.

Terry W. Hammond will be permitted to present oral argument when the

case is argued on Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 1:30 PM, before a panel

consisting of Justice Dauphinot, Justice Gabriel, and Justice Sudderth, in the

courtroom of the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, which is

located on the 9th floor of the Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center. This panel is

subject to change by the court. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.8.

Appellant and appellee will each have a total of twenty (20) minutes for

oral argument with appellant having an additional five (5) minutes for rebuttal. 

Hammond will be allowed to present oral argument during any or all of the twenty

(20) minutes allotted to the appellee in accordance with the appellee’s agreement

with Terry W. Hammond. See Tex. R. App. P. 39.5.

The clerk of this court is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the

attorneys of record and the amicus curiae.

DATED February 12, 2015.

PER CURIAM

2

FILE COPY
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3262

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Missouri. * Patrick Pierce, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant - Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 18, 2010 Filed: June 23, 2010

___________ Before MURPHY, BEAM, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After Patrick R. Pierce pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), the district court 1 sentenced him to 57 months’ imprisonment (within the Sentencing Guidelines range). Pierce pled guilty under a written plea agreement that c ontained a waiver of his right to appeal “all sentencing issues , including any issues relating to the determination of . . . the Total Offense Leve l,” other than one issu e not relevant here.

1 The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chie f Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.See United States v. Reeves , 410 F.3d 1031, 1033 (8th Ci r. 2005) (enforcing appeal waiver covering “whatever sentence is imposed, any issue relating to the establishment of the Total Offense Level”). We will enforce the appeal waiver in this case. See United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (waiver enforced and appeal dismissed where it falls within scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice results). Pierce’s argument on appeal falls within th e scope of the appeal waiver, and the record shows the requisite knowledge and voluntariness. See id. at 890-91 (“One important way a district court can help en sure that a plea agreement and corresponding waiver are entered into knowingly and volunt arily is to properly question a defendant about his or her decision to enter that ag reement and waive the right to appeal.”). Further, enforcing the appeal waiver would not result in a miscarriage of justice. See id. at 891-92 (the miscarriage-of-justice exception to enforcing an otherwise valid appeal waiver is extremely narrow and “an allegation that the sentencing judge misapplied the Sentencing Guidelines or abus ed his or her discretion is not subject to appeal in the face of a valid appeal waiver ”). Finally, Pierce’s ineffective-assistance of counsel claim is not properly raised in this direct criminal appeal. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez , 449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

______________________________

-2-
# Úradný vestník C 138I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-1037 |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 138I |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Ročník 6328. apríla 2020 |

ISSN 1977-1037

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 138I

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Ročník 6328. apríla 2020

---

| Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Informácie |
| | INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE |
| | Európska komisia |
| 2020/C 138 I/01 | Vyhlásenie Komisie k nariadeniu Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2020/560, ktorým sa menia nariadenia (EÚ) č. 508/2014 a (EÚ) č. 1379/2013, pokiaľ ide o osobitné opatrenia na zmiernenie následkov epidémie COVID-19 v odvetví rybolovu a akvakultúry | 1 |

Obsah

Strana

IV   Informácie

INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Európska komisia

2020/C 138 I/01

Vyhlásenie Komisie k nariadeniu Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2020/560, ktorým sa menia nariadenia (EÚ) č. 508/2014 a (EÚ) č. 1379/2013, pokiaľ ide o osobitné opatrenia na zmiernenie následkov epidémie COVID-19 v odvetví rybolovu a akvakultúry

1

---

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

IV Informácie

INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Európska komisia

| 28.4.2020 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | CI 138/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2020

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

CI 138/1

---

Vyhlásenie Komisie k nariadeniu Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (EÚ) 2020/560, ktorým sa menia nariadenia (EÚ) č. 508/2014 a (EÚ) č. 1379/2013, pokiaľ ide o osobitné opatrenia na zmiernenie následkov epidémie COVID-19 v odvetví rybolovu a akvakultúry

(2020/C 138 I/01)

Komisia víta skutočnosť, že Európsky parlament a Rada urýchlene prijali jej návrh na úpravu Európskeho námorného a rybárskeho fondu s cieľom zmierniť vplyv šírenia ochorenia COVID-19 a pomôcť našim rybárom a výrobcom v odvetví akvakultúry.

Komisia by chcela zdôrazniť, že kontrola rybárstva a zber vedeckých údajov majú veľký význam pre udržateľné hospodárenie s populáciami rýb na základe najlepších dostupných vedeckých odporúčaní a spoľahlivého presadzovania práva. Zníženie finančných zdrojov by nemalo viesť k zhoršeniu uplatňovania týchto základných prvkov spoločnej rybárskej politiky.

Komisia by chcela zdôrazniť, že jej návrh, ako aj zmeny, ktoré sa v ňom urobili, sú zamerané na jedinečnú krízovú situáciu spôsobenú šírením ochorenia COVID-19 a výnimočnú a okamžitú potrebu podpory pri riešení následkov tejto krízy. Nemôžu mať vplyv na budúce nariadenie o Európskom námornom a rybárskom fonde.

---
EPNDOT hearing on Heavy-Duty Vehicle Economy and Emissions Standards 

Westin Hotel Long Beach, August 18, 2015 

Douglas E. MacLaughlin 

5071 Hallwood Avenue 

Riverside, CA 92506 

951-686-7468 

graffmacl@cs.com 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Douglas MacLaughlin. I am an 

emeritus physics professor at the University of California, Riverside. I am here as a 

private citizen and member of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS for short). The 

UCS is a non-profit organization that carries out rigorous scientific analyses of problems 

of national and worldwide importance. 

The subject of this hearing is a body of regulations to improve efficiency and reduce 

emissions of heavy-duty vehicles. I am very glad the Obama administration is proposing 

new standards that will do this. I'm here because I have several concerns about nonsustainable fossil-fuel consumption, but my chief concern is climate change caused by 

global warming. The science has been clear on this for quite some time: global warming 

is real, and it threatens the habitability of our planet. In my opinion and, more 

importantly, in the opinion of the vast majority of scientists in the field, it is the greatest 

threat facing us today. If we do nothing, or not enough, it is a sure thing. It is not a 

question of whether or not it will happen, it is a question of when. Humanity is capable 

of overcoming it, but to do so will take an enormous and complex effort. The proposed 

standards are a small but very important part of this great challenge. 

The administration's proposals are a good first step, but the UCS has shown that they 

can be strengthened. They have has analyzed this issue in detail, and made specific 

additional proposals. They have shown that new technology in new trucks can reduce 

fuel consumption by 40 percent by 2025. This is more, and faster, than the 

administration's proposed goal of 36 percent reduction by 2027. Achieving the UCS 

target would mean an additional reduction of hundreds of millions of metric tons of 

global warming emissions annually, equivalent to shutting down quite a few coal-fired 

power plants. 

And there are many other benefits. Air pollution and its effect on public health are 

reduced. Truck owners are less vulnerable to volatile oil prices, and our country is less 

vulnerable to volatility in oil-producing regions of the world. It is cost effective: In the 

UCS's recommended scenario the reduction in fuel costs alone pays big-rig owners for 

the new technology in just over a year. But, most important to me, this is an absolutely 

necessary step in the fight against global warming. And it can be done. 

Once again, I am very glad that the administration is proposing significant new 

efficiency and emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks. But I also strongly support 

strengthening these standards, to achieve the 40% fuel consumption reduction by 2025 

that the UCS has shown to be possible. It can be done. It must be done. Thanks again 

for the opportunity to testify.
#### Caralee J. PIERCE, Personal Representative For the Estate of Thomas Laclead Pierce, Deceased, Appellee, v. Helen M. ERZEN, Appellant.

No. 83CA0130.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Oct. 20, 1983.

*1024Buchanan, Thomas & Johnson, G. Thomas O’Malley, III, Lakewood, for appellee.

George J. Duckworth, Denver, for appellant.

KELLY, Judge.

Helen M. Erzen, claimant, appeals from the judgment of the trial court disallowing her claim against the estate of Thomas Lac-lead Pierce. We affirm.

Claimant filed a claim against the estate, pursuant to § 15-12-804, C.R.S.1973, for money due her on a promissory note executed by the decedent. When the estate disallowed the claim, claimant filed a petition for allowance of the claim, pursuant to § 15-12-806, C.R.S.1973.

At the outset of the trial, the estate stipulated to the genuineness of the decedent’s signature on claimant’s note and expressed its intent to waive the Dead Man’s Statute and to rely instead on the defenses of failure of consideration and payment. Claimant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the estate to present evidence in support of the defenses of payment and offset, which had not been identified by the estate in its answers to claimant’s interrogatories, and in denying her motion for new trial based on surprise. We do not agree.

Even though claimant knew at the outset of the trial that the estate intended to waive its right to invoke the Dead Man’s Statute, and to rely instead on the defense of payment, she raised no objection at that time. Moreover, the cross-examination to which she did object concerned her endorsement on the promissory note which had been admitted in evidence by stipulation. It was this endorsement which provoked the inquiry concerning payment. Claimant did not request a continuance although the trial court offered additional time to rebut the further documentary evidence of the estate showing payment.

The claimant may not assert surprise where the record shows that her opponent’s defense arose from the very evidence on which claimant’s case was based. *See Murphy v. Colorado Aviation, Inc.,*41 Colo. App. 237, 588 P.2d 877 (1978). Further, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion for new trial based on surprise when claimant failed to avail herself of the relief to which she was entitled and which was offered to her. *See Schlessman v. Brainard,*104 Colo. 514, 92 P.2d 749 (1939).

Claimant also argues that the evidence presented did not support the judgment of the trial court. The findings of the trial court must be accepted on review unless they are so clearly erroneous as to find no support in the record. *Page v. Clark,*197 Colo. 306, 592 P.2d 792 (1979). There was evidence in the record to support the findings of the trial court and we will not reverse.

Finally, claimant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for summary judgment. *Manuel v. Fort Collins Newspapers, Inc.,*631 P.2d 1114 (Colo.1981) is dispositive of this issue.

Order affirmed.

SMITH and VAN CISE, JJ., concur.
EPA Public Hearing Clean Power Plan 

My name is Brenna Perez, I am a student at Old Dominion University of Norfolk, Virginia. 

Norfolk is located in a coastal region of Virginia that is rated second only to New Orleans as the 

area most vulnerable to sea-level rise in the United States. As a resident of a region that is 

feeling the direct effects of climate change every day, I am very happy to see the Environmental 

Protection Agency taking action through the Clean Power Plan. 

The Clean Power Plan is a ground breaking and necessary step in addressing climate change. 

Power plants are responsible for 40 percent of the carbon pollution in the United Statesmaking them the single largest source of carbon pollution in the country. We have been 

complacent towards the major cause of climate change for too long. Carbon emission reduction 

is a much needed catalyst to make energy efficiency and renewable energy a priority for the 

u.s. 

Virginia is becoming increasingly vulnerable to sea level rise, and the devastating effects of 

climate change are already having severe implications for the region. Climate change is not only 

affecting Americans, it is a global issue. In response, America must become a leader in taking 

action to reduce carbon emissions. I look forward to seeing our country on the forefront of 

creating a clean and sustainable future. I feel groundbreaking action, like the EPA's Clean Power 

Pian, will play a significant role in creating that future for our generation and generations to 

come. 

Sincerely, 

Brenna Perez 

5258 Waller Court 

Virginia Beach, VA 23464
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20489]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8002]



[[Page 20489]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/Self-
Employed Decreasing Non-Filers Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/
Self-Employed Decreasing Non-Filers Project Committee will be 
conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy Panel is soliciting public comments, 
ideas, and suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal 
Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, April 17, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Robb at 1-888-912-1227 or 
414-231-2360.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Small Business/
Self-Employed Decreasing Non-Filers Project Committee will be held 
Tuesday, April 17, 2012, at 1 p.m. Eastern Time via telephone 
conference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit 
written statements for consideration. Due to limited conference lines, 
notification of intent to participate must be made with Ms. Patricia 
Robb. For more information please contact Ms. Robb at 1-888-912-1227 or 
414-231-2360, or write TAP Office, Stop 1006MIL, 211 West Wisconsin 
Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53203-2221, or post comments to the Web site: 
http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: March 27, 2012.
Louis Morizio,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2012-8002 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### Takos, Appellant, *v.*Takos.

Argued November 15, 1961.

Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (Ehodes, P. J., absent).

Before Weir, J.

*Louis*Taira, with him *Robert W. Semenow,*for appellant.

*Frank*Reich, for appellees.

December 14, 1961:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Frederic G. Weir for the court below, reported at 25 Pa. D. & C. 2d 490.
UNITED STATES
                 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                        WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

DIVISION OF
CORPORATION FINANCE

         Mail Stop 3561
         Via facsimile and U.S. mail

                                         July 18, 2005
Barney A. Richmond, President
MyZipSoft, Inc.
100 Village Square Crossing, Suite 202
Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
Fax: 561-207-6299

              RE: MyZipSoft, Inc.
                  Registration Statement on Form 10-SB
                  File Number: 000-50783
                  Filed: July 8, 2005

Dear Mr. Richmond:

       We have completed a preliminary reading of your registration statement.
Disclosure indicates that on June 2, 2005, the registrant, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of eCom eCom.com, Inc. ("eCom"), issued all of its share certificates
to the shareholders of record of eCom in a "spin-off" transaction.  Refer to
disclosure on page 9 of Form 10-SB filed on July 8, 2005. In a letter of
correspondence, please provide us with a substantive legal analysis describing
your basis for effecting this issuance without the registration of such
transaction under the federal securities laws. In the interim, promptly withdraw
the Form 10-SB filed with us on July 8, 2005, You are advised that a Form 10-SB
will become effective, by operation of law, 60 days after filing. Should your
registration statement become effective in its present form, we would be
required to consider what recommendation, if any, we should make to the
Commission. You may contact Jay Ingram at (202)551-3397 with any questions.


                                            Sincerely,

                                            /s/ for John Reynolds

                                            John Reynolds
                                            Assistant Director
                                            Office of Emerging Growth Companies
#### Herman Q. BYRD, et al. v. Judy Caldwell BYRD, et al.

No. 86-C-1117.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1986.

In re Byrd, Judy Caldwell; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 17798-CA; Parish of Caldwell, 37th Judicial District Court, No. 14758.

Prior report: La.App., 488 So.2d 1134.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and WATSON and LEM-MON, JJ., would grant the writ.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**








**Certification
      by the Chief Financial Officer**


**of**


**Boardwalk
      GP, LLC**


**pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350**


**(as
      adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**








Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned chief financial officer of Boardwalk
      GP, LLC hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the quarterly report
      on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, (the "Report") of Boardwalk
      Pipeline Partners, LP (the "Partnership") fully complies with the requirements
      of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations.





April
      30,
      2007


/ *s/
      Jamie L. Buskill*


Jamie
      L.
      Buskill


Chief
      Financial Officer


(principal
      financial officer)
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 21, 2012

t0514 

# Order

May 21, 2012

144571 & (12)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 144571 COA: 306572 Ionia CC: 2010-014950-FH STEVEN RAYMOND LYONS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 8, 2011 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to

remand is DENIED.
#### Mitzi Helen Reed BETTS v. Joe Lynn REED.

No. 57864.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

July 20, 1988.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 17, 1988.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Oktibbeha County; W.W. Brand, Jr., Chancellor.

*1130Barry W. Gilmer, Gilmer Law Firm, Jackson, for appellant.

William H. Ward, Ward & Rogers, Stark-ville, for appellee.

Before DAN M. LEE, P.J., and SULLIVAN and ZUCCARO, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

PRATHER, J., not participating.