alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Theodore LUCERO, a/k/a Teddy Lucero, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 81SA150.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Aug. 10, 1981.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 24, 1981.

*586J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Morgan Rumler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.

J. Gregory Walta, Colorado State Public Defender, Margaret L. O’Leary, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.

HODGES, Chief Justice.

Defendant Lucero was sentenced to a term of imprisonment pursuant to convictions obtained on February 16, 1978. Defendant now appeals that sentence, arguing that he is entitled to be resentenced under the 1977 version of House Bill 1589, Colo. Sess. Laws 1977, ch. 216, 18-1-105 at 867, and challenging the constitutionality of the non-retroactive effect of section 25 of House Bill 1589, as amended in March 1979, Colo. Sess. Laws 1979, ch. 157, sec. 25 at 672. We affirm.

The arguments raised by the defendant have been rejected by this court in *People v. McKenna,*Colo., 611 P.2d 574 (1980), and *Tacorante v. People,*Colo., 624 P.2d 1324 (1981). We have consistently adhered to those decisions in many recent cases, *see People v. Francis,*Colo., 630 P.2d 82, n. 1, (1981), and we do so now.

Judgment affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROMAN ELON JONES,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 11 WAL 2024

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 14th day of May, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.

Justice McCaffery did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
. l -í 

ATTORNEY DRNRRAL 

August 7, 1962 

Mr. 0. F. Steger 

County At torney 

Columbus, Texas 

Dear Mr. Steger: 

Opinion No. WW-1407 

Re: Whether a county tax 

assessor-collector has 

the right to enter upon 

land for the purpose of 

personally inspecting 

the land and Improvements 

thereon for assessment 

purposes and related 

question 

tions: 

You have requested an opinion on the following two ques- 

"Does a county Tax Assessor-Collector 

have the right to enter upon land for the 

purpose of personally inspecting the land 

and Improvements thereon for assessment 

purposes; and, If he does have such right, 

can he exercise seme at any time except 

within the period between January 1st and 

April 30th of each year?" 

The first question has been answered by this department in 

former opinions numbered O-1489 and 0-3376, which are enclosed 

herewith. 

The second question in your request is whether or not the 

Tax Assessor-Collector has authority to go upon the land of the 

owner to inspect the land and improvements for assessment purposes other than within the period between January 1st and April 

30th of each year. 

Article 7189, Vernon's Civil Statutes, provides as follows: 

"Assessors of taxes shall, between the 

first day of January and the thirtieth day 

of April of each year, prbceed to take a 

list of taxable property, real and personal, 

in his county and assess the value thereof 

in the manner following, to-wit: By calling 

upon the person, or by calling at the office, 

place of business or the residence of the 

person, and listing the property required by 
_. 

Mr. G. F. Steger, Page 2 Opinion No. WW-1407 

law in his name, and requiring such person 

to make a statement under said oath of such 

property in the form hereinafter prescribed." 

Article 7190, V.C.S., provides that assessments made after 

April 30th are legal, and Arts. 7191, 7192 and 7193, V.C.S., set 

out duties of the assessor In cases where the owner falls or refuses to render his property. 

We are of the opinion that It Is the duty of the Tax Assessor-Collector to assess the property in his county between the 

first of January and the thirtieth of April, as stated In Article 

7189, V.C.S. If he fails, for some reason, to assess such property during the above mentioned period of time, and deems it necessary to enter on the land of a taxpayer for the purpose of assessing his property, he has the right to do so at any reasonable 

time, end is not bound to that part of the year between January 1st 

and April 30th. 

SUMMARY 

A Tax Assessor-Collector has the right to 

enter upon land for the purpose of inspecting and 

assessing for taxes at any~reasonable time, and Is 

not confined to January 1st through April 30th to 

do so. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE: 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Tom McFarling 

F. R. Booth 

Bob ShaMOn 

Joe Osborn 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: Leonard Passmore
----

|                                                                  |   |                                |      |                                |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------|-----------|-------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                                  |   | Three                  Months Ended |      | Three                  Months Ended |   |
|                                                                  |   | March                  31, 2007     |      | March                  31, 2006     |   |
|                                                                  |   |                                |      |                                |   |
| Income                  available to common stockholders              |   | $                                   | 34,668    |                                | $      | 86,265 |   |
|                                                                  |   |                                |      |                                |   |   |   |
| Weighted                  average shares outstanding                  |   |                                | 1,788,080 |                                |   | 1,819,490 |   |
|                                                                  |   |                                |      |                                |   |   |   |
| Basic                  earnings per share                             |   | $                                   | 0.02      |                                | $      | 0.05 |   |
|                                                                  |   |                                |      |                                |   |   |   |
| Income                  for diluted earnings per share                |   | $                                   | 34,668    |                                | $      | 86,265 |   |
|                                                                  |   |                                |      |                                |   |   |   |
| Total                  weighted average common shares and equivalents |   |                                |      |                                |   |   |   |
| outstanding                  for diluted computation                  |   |                                | 1,789,315 |                                |   | 1,824,558 |   |
|                                                                  |   |                                |      |                                |   |   |   |
| Diluted                  earnings per share                           |   | $                                   | 0.02      |                                | $      | 0.05 |   |
#### CELEBRITY CLUB INCORPORATED, dba The Gatsby, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UTAH LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 17887.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Dec. 14, 1982.

James A. McIntyre, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., John S. McAllister, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

*1293HALL, Chief Justice:

Defendant Utah Liquor Control Commission revoked plaintiff’s state liquor store lease and plaintiff sought relief in the district court in the form of a preliminary injunction preventing defendant from enforcing its revocation order. The district court declined relief in light of the provision of U.C.A., 1953, § 32-1-32.6 which deprives the district courts of jurisdiction in such matters. The central issue on appeal bears upon the constitutionality of the statutory restriction upon the district court’s jurisdiction.

The companion case of *Celebrity Club Incorporated, dba The Gatsby v. Utah Liquor Control Commission,*657 P.2d 1293, also decided this day, upholds the constitutionality of that portion of the statute in question which deprives *all*courts, other than this Court, of jurisdiction to review the actions of the defendant Commission. The decision in that case is dispos-itive, and the reader is referred thereto for the Court’s reasoning.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. No costs awarded.

STEWART, OAKS, HOWE and DURHAM, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Douglas MacLeod, certify that:

 

1.            Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this reporton Form 10-K of CNH Equipment Trust 2021-B (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.            Basedon my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.            Basedon my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.            Iam responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted inpreparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.            Allof the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance withItem 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwisedisclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I havereasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Citibank, N.A.

  

 

 

 

March 30, 2022
#### Emma L. WHITE, Ella Mae Ware and Jeff Ware v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT, et al.

No. 88-C-1040.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 1988.

In re White, Emma L.; Ware, Ella Mae; Ware, Jeff; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 19474-CA; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, No. 311983.

Prior report: La.App., 524 So.2d 551.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 338 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 338

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2002

   Received and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Authorizing the printing as a House document of a collection of 
      memorial tributes made in honor of the late Gerald Solomon.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZING PRINTING OF COLLECTION OF STATEMENTS IN TRIBUTE 
              TO GERALD SOLOMON.

    A collection of statements made in tribute to the late Gerald 
Solomon, together with related materials, shall be printed as a House 
document under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing, with 
illustrations and suitable binding.

SEC. 2. NUMBER OF COPIES.

    The number of copies of the document printed under section 1 shall 
be the lesser of--
            (1) 114 casebound copies, of which 50 copies shall be 
        provided to the family of the late Gerald Solomon, 1 copy shall 
        be provided to each Senator from the State of New York, and 2 
        copies shall be provided to each Member of the House of 
        Representatives from the State of New York; or
            (2) such number of casebound copies as does not exceed a 
        total production and printing cost of

        $25,525, with distribution to be allocated in the same 
        proportion as described in paragraph (1).

            Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 2002.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
C OURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MIGUEL ESTRADA

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 5

- 00 275

- C R

Appeal from the

34th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20140D03119 )

O R D E R

Appellant’s Pro Se Motion for Access to Appellate Record is GRANTED. Th e Court is

hereby providing a CD containing the clerk’s record 1 volume, and the reporter’s record 6 of 7

volumes (volume 7 of 7 is an exhibit volume and it is not included). The CD is being provided to

the Senior Warden

, of t h e Ellis Unit, 1697 FM 980

, Huntsville , Texas, 7 7343

, for use

b y the App e l l a nt, Miguel Estrada , # 02017254

, und e r the supe r vis i on of s a id Senior

Warden a nd/or d e s i g n a ted c usto d ian of r ec o r ds. The CD does not need to be returned to the

Court.

F u r the r

, t h e Cour t ’ s GRANTS

, the App e l l a n t ’ s P r o S e Motion for Extension of

Time to File Pro Se Brief until July 14 , 2016

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 4 th day of June, 2016

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes , JJ.
to

■-■■■

\\e is

p,u

ft-lL /■ '.v W- \H i'

TME

Vi£.

Uf TtXAS

MCH KUJ fOft EN UiU-iOl:

S€ TO

Ov

Am

T\Mt TO PI! E-~-

■■—.

1.

/■

no

9-utt-tt- A\

-■

TV

Vu

Vo ft??*\\ftVe
wnoj v^noi •.

oo
UNSWORN DECLARATION BY INMATE

T. ,SID

Being presently incarcerated in the Bexar County Adult

Detention Center, San Antonio, Texas declare under Penalty of

Perjury that the foregoing instrument is true and correct

Signed on this the 12ttday of rsanueAPU

Defendant
Tifecp

H*TTH' -1:

in

lit

C o cz

"5> t?

7<

rn
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 72

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the employers of the members

of the reserve components of the Armed Forces.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 20, 2001

Mr. WICKER submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred

to the Committee on Armed Services

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the employers

of the members of the reserve components of the Armed

Forces.

Whereas the United States relies on the service of the members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces to

meet the security needs of the Nation at home and

around the world;

Whereas the reserve components of the Armed Forces are an

increasingly important part of the force structure of the

Armed Forces;

Whereas the members of the reserve components of the

Armed Forces are being deployed to serve critical functions around the world in support of the strategic interests of the United States;
2

•HCON 72 IH

Whereas the members of the reserve components of the

Armed Forces make significant contributions through

their civilian employment to communities throughout the

United States;

Whereas the employers of the members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces play a vital part in ensuring

the ability of the United States to maintain a well-trained

and prepared reserve component; and

Whereas chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, provides

members of the uniformed services, including members of

the reserve components of the Armed Forces, with protections against adverse employment actions that are motivated by the involvement of such members with the uniformed services: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that employ3 ers of members of the reserve components of the Armed

4 Forces should—

5 (1) be commended for their unwavering com6 mitment to their employees who serve the Nation as

7 members of the reserve components of the Armed

8 Forces; and

9 (2) continue to support the mission of the re10 serve components of the Armed Forces by strictly

11 adhering to the provisions of chapter 43 of title 38,

12 United States Code.

Æ
# Dziennik Urzędowy C 138I/2020

| | ISSN 1977-1002 |
| --- | --- |
| Dziennik Urzędowy
  Unii Europejskiej | C 138I |
| | |
| Wydanie polskie | Informacje i zawiadomienia | Rocznik 6328 kwietnia 2020 |

ISSN 1977-1002

Dziennik Urzędowy

Unii Europejskiej

C 138I

Wydanie polskie

Informacje i zawiadomienia

Rocznik 6328 kwietnia 2020

---

| Spis treści | Strona |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Informacje |
| | INFORMACJE INSTYTUCJI, ORGANÓW I JEDNOSTEK ORGANIZACYJNYCH UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ |
| | Komisja Europejska |
| 2020/C 138 I/01 | Oświadczenie Komisji w sprawie rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) 2020/560 zmieniającego rozporządzenia (UE) nr 508/2014 i (UE) nr 1379/2013 w odniesieniu do szczególnych środków mających na celu złagodzenie skutków epidemii COVID-19 i pomocy rybakom i producentom z sektora akwakultury | 1 |

Spis treści

Strona

IV   Informacje

INFORMACJE INSTYTUCJI, ORGANÓW I JEDNOSTEK ORGANIZACYJNYCH UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ

Komisja Europejska

2020/C 138 I/01

Oświadczenie Komisji w sprawie rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) 2020/560 zmieniającego rozporządzenia (UE) nr 508/2014 i (UE) nr 1379/2013 w odniesieniu do szczególnych środków mających na celu złagodzenie skutków epidemii COVID-19 i pomocy rybakom i producentom z sektora akwakultury

1

---

| PL | |
| --- | --- |

PL

---

IV Informacje

INFORMACJE INSTYTUCJI, ORGANÓW I JEDNOSTEK ORGANIZACYJNYCH UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ

Komisja Europejska

| 28.4.2020 | PL | Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej | CI 138/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2020

PL

Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej

CI 138/1

---

Oświadczenie Komisji w sprawie rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) 2020/560 zmieniającego rozporządzenia (UE) nr 508/2014 i (UE) nr 1379/2013 w odniesieniu do szczególnych środków mających na celu złagodzenie skutków epidemii COVID-19 i pomocy rybakom i producentom z sektora akwakultury

(2020/C 138 I/01)

Komisja z zadowoleniem przyjmuje szybkie przyjęcie przez Parlament Europejski i Radę jej wniosku w sprawie zmiany Europejskiego Funduszu Morskiego i Rybackiego, służącej złagodzeniu skutków epidemii COVID-19 i pomocy rybakom i producentom z sektora akwakultury.

Komisja pragnie podkreślić, że kontrola rybołówstwa i gromadzenie danych naukowych mają ogromne znaczenie dla zrównoważonego zarządzania zasobami rybnymi w oparciu o najlepsze dostępne doradztwo naukowe i skuteczne egzekwowanie przepisów. Zmniejszenie środków finansowych na te potrzeby nie powinno prowadzić do pogorszenia wyników w tych ważnych obszarach wspólnej polityki rybołówstwa.

Komisja pragnie podkreślić, że jej wniosek, jak również wprowadzone do niego zmiany, stanowią odpowiedź na wyjątkową sytuację kryzysową spowodowaną pandemią COVID-19 oraz wyjątkową i natychmiastową potrzebę wsparcia, które pozwoli zaradzić jej skutkom. Nie mogą one przesądzać o przyszłym rozporządzeniu w sprawie Europejskiego Funduszu Morskiego i Rybackiego.

---
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Atlas America Series 25-2004 (B) L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Matthew A. Jones, Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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,
and


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





By:
            /s/ Matthew A.
      JonesName:
            Matthew
      A. JonesTitle:
            Chief
      Financial Officer of the Managing General PartnerDate:
            May
      14, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6504

MARC WAYNE PERSONIUS,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:12-cv-01096-LO-JFA)

Submitted: June 13, 2013 Decided: June 18, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marc Wayne Personius, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Marc Wayne Personius seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Personius has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED