alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

COTTON PROGRAM

REQUEST FOR CLASSIFICATION

FOR CCC SALES ONLY

ANNOUNCEMENT SALE TAG LIST

1. USDA CLASSING LOCATION (City and State) DATE

2. THE UNDERSIGNED REQUESTS ("X" ONLY ONE BLOCK IN THIS SECTION)

ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION COMPARISON REVIEW

 FORM A FORM A FORM A

 FORM D FORM D FORM D

 FOREIGN GROWTH FOREIGN GROWTH FOREIGN GROWTH

Classification data will be issued on Cotton Program computer listings.

NOTE: See reverse for explanation of services and instructions for submitting samples 

3. SERVICE DESIRED ("X" ONE)

HVI Classification with Official Color Grade,

Leaf Grade, and Extraneous Matter

 HVI Classification

4. DESCRIPTION OF COTTON ("X" ONE)

a. Growth Upland Pima Other(Specify)

b. Type Ginning Saw Roller

c. Production Area United States

 Outside United States

d. Has any cotton been reginned, repacked, or processed in addition

 to normal ginning? Yes NO

e. Does any cotton contain linters, gin waste, or mill waste? Yes No

5. SAMPLES ARE ("X" one)

 Freshly drawn and submitted from a warehouse licensed by the

Cotton Program, AMS

 OTHER (Specify)

6. DISPOSITION OF SAMPLES

 Government Loose

 Hold samples for possible review

 Owner will pick up

 Return to owner via (Carrier)

 Owner’s Account No.

7. CLASSIFICATION DATA TO BE SENT TO 

APPLICANT ("X"ONE)

 Mail

 Fax:

 Telephone Number:

 Hold for Pickup

8. SAMPLES SUBMITTED TYPE

LOT NO. NO. B/C LOT NO. NO. B/C

FIRM NAME

SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE

ADDRESS (Street and No., City, State, ZIP Code)

PHONE NUMBER:

LOCATION OF COTTON (Warehouse, City, State)

FORM FD-210 (08-00) (Previous editions are obsolete)
EXPLANATION OF TYPES OF CLASSING SERVICES AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING 

SAMPLES

COTTON STANDARDS ACT

1. FORM A MEMORANDUM – Issued on classification or comparison of samples freshly drawn and submitted 

direct to the Classing Office serving the territory in which the cotton is located by a warehouse licensed by the 

Cotton Program, AMS.

2. FORM D MEMORANDUM – Issued as an informative classification or comparison on samples submitted 

by the owner of the cotton or his/her agent to the Classing Office serving the territory in which the samples are 

located.

NOTE: Samples representing cotton produced outside the United States are NOT eligible for Form A or D classing. 

(See "Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946" below)

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT OF 1946

Memorandum on Foreign Growth Cotton Samples - Issued on classification or comparison of samples from cotton 

produced outside the United States. Samples should be submitted to the Classing Office serving the territory in 

which the samples are located. If the samples are located outside the United States, they should be submitted to 

the Classing Office designated by the Director of the Cotton Division, AMS.

FORM FD-210 (REVERSE) (08-00)
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 07/25/2014

FROM: Laura Farris/EPA Region 8

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Colorado Sustainability Collaborative Conference Call held on 06/26/2014

SUMMARY: 

Laura Farris, EPA Region 8 Climate Change Coordinator, presented information on the proposed Clean

Power Plan for Existing Power Plants via teleconference during the Colorado Sustainability 

Collaborative’s monthly conference call on 06/26/2014. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants 

was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA Region 8

Laura Farris

External Stakeholders

Members of Colorado Sustainability Collaborative

ATTACHMENTS

Clean Power Plan PowerPoint Presentation.
Abatement Order filed April 9, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00886-CR

____________

ISMAEL MARTINEZ, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1391745

ABATEMENT ORDER

The record in this case does not contain the trial court’s findings of fact and 

conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s hospital bed statement, 

which was the subject of appellant’s motion to suppress. Article 38.22, section 6 of 

the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires the trial court to make written fact 

findings and conclusions of law as to whether a challenged statement was made 

voluntarily, even if appellant did not request them or object to their absence. Tex. 
Code Crim. Proc. art. 38.22 ' 6; Urias v. State, 155 S.W.3d 141, 142 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2004). The statute is mandatory and the proper procedure to correct the error 

is to abate the appeal and direct the trial court to make the required findings and 

conclusions. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.4; Wicker v. State, 740 S.W.2d 779, 784 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1987). 

Accordingly, the trial court is directed to reduce to writing its findings of 

fact and conclusions of law on the voluntariness of appellant’s statement and have 

a supplemental clerk’s record containing those findings filed with the clerk of this 

Court on or before May 8, 2015.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when the 

trial court’s findings and recommendations are filed in this Court. The Court will 

also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party. 

It is so ORDERED.

PER CURIAM
(D^£>4oyrAjChfipadc

RECEIVE

The Court of Ap|>

Sixth District

M& 0 Q 2015

°a n &

iexarkana,iTegas'

Dabra AutreJ^^&L _ . .

122.

sfej\ /^clo 4Utj c4 ^£ki^? Mr* k)^4^uMh

thl^y~(f\> Cull Q-tofo lM)^i^fPfeJi>^A^ oltJ^th ^Mb

^^ Co^jz^^U^JWp^

k^ C^iJ-i^ IV o

'axA*rJu\ \UW, is^pl du^imd ~&ju &4

*yii/buh dvisTzJb 3h?t2

styi^M utpSubsl; eU^%

S APR 09 2015

Ato@IAcoste, Gl&rk

V Wfc£ /vlO ft

^

^ ^M\jWtU
RECEIVED IN

The Court of Appeals

Slx'th District ""

—AP« -0 -5- 2015 - -

^Texarkana, Texas' 7

Dsbra.Autrey, Clerk.

-Si......

U-- U^\j^7Vi~&U

.^<Mkfo_J
TABLE OF CONTEMS

(I^HWSE^afcayfTgYW^mr: Out of Time Appeal i pgs.jf-#>

(2) Unsworn Declaration. 4t pg. ( pttyis

(3) Inability to Pay... ^p@g. \Pa^U
&&tltwmst Pro &&

S 123©$ Judicial District Court

of

§

tm smm of mm I ftnolA Qcmt$, T«s*as 75633

i^Dmiiititfwu^w* Hnw •nwW'fafiwiXmtii twww^W'"»,^?'^^*»^fl*"«M''w^':«»w»;

impllmtim f®t Oat of jTtaa„dfljaajLlfll

*^WWWlMt*i^il^^i«»«wT^i«B^^«W«Wiia(>*rti.>»

To tfea isooesrafci© Jw%© of si&tci Courts

Cam Etotf, ttiUios Miett Softer, Petitioner* fro Se» TDCJ-IB MX 0032S353 herelifter rafsarerj to as Hf«^itiC3R@t'r arid file tliif Ms *Vtg^icafe&&s Separate .Mshoksh

ssste «*£ 'L^agai &itat£ao'd to Support Petitlosisr4© Jkppiteatioa for Out Of Tisne Appeal

will show tills Hpewrsble Court tae following:

lite 123rd Judicial Court of Pirola flpgnty. Ifeagsis did not torn. Lmal Jurisdiction

in ttsa aJsove^MLpd cat^a jpl fltmt ®©tl

•ftio ^etitlorKjr «

is Actually Innocent,

simm® or Mas pb...causae cps

the Ponsola County S&esriff ffepGrt?Mit dill tmt ftswe Lagal Jurisdiction to

Investigate this ettae*

FACES SUTOHiG GB0R8) ONSt

itss Panola Gsusiity Sheriff Vi fiepasrtrfjeat «a3 apparently called t*» investigate

this asir^er euso m& mm tho«#s tills arte bad ftapsaasneS in Stelby County the

Iteoia Coyrvsy Shariff?s Hfeartaisc cositimastd thusir iavesligaefcft* «hSch issss sait-

$i<& of felWt legal boMnsferi«s aid their Legal Jurisdiction ami tlteri arrested @rd

cters^S the Petitioner *fitti H^^ee in Psr©la Qsaniy, ?ma&* Tm Ptetitiomar ytas

included a liar^ d?;a&a (imp of where tni® -i?iujpder «&s.» infect, oaraitad (aeooixii^ to

*'ki* » *
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6690

RUDOLPH LEE CRAWLEY, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PROBATION AND

PAROLE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District

Judge. (3:06-cv-00388-HEH)

Submitted: August 10, 2007 Decided: August 24, 2007

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rudolph Lee Crawley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

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

PER CURIAM:

Rudolph Lee Crawley, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

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

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Crawley 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 materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
#### Larry Leon CHANEY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-77-699.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 1, 1981.

ORDER SETTING DATE FOR EXECUTION

On May 15, 1980, this Court entered an opinion affirming the conviction of Larry Leon Chaney for the offense of Murder in the First Degree for which the death penalty was assessed.

On September 12, 1980, this Court entered an order denying appellant’s petition for rehearing and stayed the execution of the death warrant for six months pending an appeal by appellant to the United States Supreme Court.

*873On December 11,1980, appellant filed his petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, Case Number 80-947; and on March 22, 1981, the United States Supreme Court issued an Order denying appellant’s petition for Writ of Certiorari.

On March 26, 1981, the Attorney General filed an application with this Court requesting that this Court’s previous order staying the execution be vacated; and that a new date for execution be set in accordance with 22 O.S.1971, § 1001.

NOW THEREFORE, after considering the application filed herein and being fully advised in the premises, this Court finds that it is necessary that a new date for execution be set in the above styled and numbered appeal.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT, that the order entered by this Court on September 12, 1980, staying the execution of the death warrant in this appeal shall be vacated; and it is further ordered that the date for the execution of appellant, LARRY LEON CHANEY; shall be June 29, 1981, in accordance with the provisions of 22 O.S.1977 Supp., § 1014.

WITNESS OUR SIGNATURES AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT, this 1st day of April, 1981.

Tom Brett, P. J.

HEZ J. BUSSEY, J.

TOM R. CORNISH, J.
#### The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Delbert Dean LODDY, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 16855.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Sept. 29, 1980.

Ronald L. Elton, Tooele County Atty., H. Wayne Green, Tooele, for plaintiff and appellant.

Edward K. Brass, Robert Van Sciver, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

WILKINS, Justice:

This is an appeal by the Tooele county attorney from an order of the District Court of that county dismissing a charge of theft against Defendant Delbert Dean Lod-dy. The right to appeal from such an order was, at the time the appeal was taken, granted by Section 77-39-4(l).1 This section was replaced as of July 1, 1980, by Section 77-35-26.

In attacking the dismissal, the county attorney raises two issues, and defendant maintains that the county attorney lacks *61authority to bring this appeal. As we agree with defendant, only that issue will be here addressed.

> In *State v. Jiminez,*
>       *2*
>       **this Court stated: . .. the various County Attorneys are constitutional officers and are empowered to perform such duties “as may be prescribed by law”3 (footnote omitted).

The powers and duties of county attorneys were prescribed by the Legislature in Section 17-18-1, which provides in pertinent part:

> The county attorney is a public prosecutor, and must:

> (1) Conduct on behalf of the state all prosecutions for public offenses committed within his county ...

> ******

> (3) ... the county attorney shall appear and prosecute for the state in the *district court*of his county in all criminal prosecutions, and may appear in all civil cases in which the state may be interested, and render such assistance as may be required by the attorney general in all such cases that may be appealed to the Supreme Court ... (emphasis added).

Likewise the attorney general is a constitutional officer4 whose duties are prescribed by law. Section 67-5-1 sets forth those duties and provides in part:

> It is the duty of the attorney general:

> (1) To attend the Supreme Court of this state, and all courts of the United States, and prosecute or defend all causes to which the state ... is a party ...

> ******

> (5) To exercise supervisory powers over the ... county attorneys of the state in all matters pertaining to the duties of their offices ...

> ******

> (7) When required by the public service or directed by the governor, to assist any . . . county attorney in the discharge of his duties.

This appeal was taken by the Tooele county attorney in the name of the State, but the record does not disclose that he was rendering “such assistance as ... required by the attorney general ...” And significantly, the Tooele county attorney has not responded in any way to this critical point. Therefore, this appeal must be dismissed.

CROCKETT, C. J., and MAUGHAN, HALL and STEWART, JJ., concur.

. All references are to Utah Code Ann., 1953, as amended.

. Utah, 588 P.2d 707 (1978).

. *Id.,*at 707-708. See Utah Const., Art. VII, § 10.

.See *State v. Jiminez, supra,*n. 3 and Utah Const., Art. VII, §§ 1 & 18.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ONE (1) 43 FOOT SAILING VESSEL "WINDS WILL,” LICENSE O.N. 531317/US and equipment, Defendant, Sun Charters, Inc., Claimant-Appellant.

No. 76-1166

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 13, 1976.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 19, 1976.

Mitchell D. Aronson, Miami, Fla., Philip W. Dann, St. Petersburg, Fla., for claimant-appellant.

Robert W. Rust, U. S. Atty., Patricia Jean Kyle, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before AINSWORTH, CLARK and RO-NEY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see *Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al.,*5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM:

While engaged in a surface law enforcement patrol in the Yucatan Channel fifteen or so miles west of Cuba on the night of September 8, 1975, members of the crew of United States Coast Guard Cutter DAUNTLESS boarded a 43 foot sailing vessel, WINDS WILL, running without lights, for a safety inspection. 14 U.S.C.A. § 2 and § 89. Smell and plain view observation led to the discovery of 2,030 pounds of marijuana on board. The United States sought and obtained summary judgment of forfeiture of the vessel. We affirm on the basis of the Memorandum Opinion of District Judge Atkins. In so doing, we specifically hold that 14 U.S.C.A. § 89(a) is constitutional. *See United States v. Rodgers,*150 U.S. 249, 264, 14 S.Ct. 109, 37 L.Ed. 1071 (1893); *Maul v. United States,*274 U.S. 501, 511, 47 S.Ct. 735, 71 L.Ed. 1171 (1927). *Cf. United States v. Odom,*526 F.2d 339 (5th Cir. 1976), and *United States v. Hillstrom,*533 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1976).

AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**SENECA GAMING CORPORATIONCERTIFICATION OF CORPORATE OFFICERS**

 

(Furnished Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Seneca Gaming Corporation, or SGC, on Form 10-Qfor the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2009, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission, we, Catherine Walker, Chief OperatingOfficer (principal executive officer), and David Sheridan, Chief FinancialOfficer (principal financial officer), 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 QuarterlyReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2.                                       The informationcontained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of SGC as of, and for, theperiods presented in the Form 10-Q.

 

Date:  February 4, 2010

 
| /s/ Catherine Walker           |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|
| Catherine Walker               |   |
| Chief Operating Officer        |   |
| (Principal Executive  Officer) |   |
|                           |   |
|                           |   |
| /s/ David Sheridan             |   |
| David Sheridan                 |   |
| Chief Financial Officer        |   |
| (Principal Financial  Officer) |   |

 

 

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

 

----
UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTALPROTECTIONAGENCYREGION7Ms.KyraL.MooreDirectorAirPollutionControlProgram11201RennerBoulevardLenexa,Kansas66219FEB2 52016MissouriDepartmentofNaturalResourcesP.O.Box176JeffersonCity,Missouri65102DearMs.MooreThisletterisinresponsetoyourOctober9,2015submissionofthe"NonattainmentAreaPlanforthe20101-HourSulfurDioxideNationalAmbientAirQualityStandard"fortheJacksonCountynonattainmentarea.Thissubmittalcontainsnonattainmentplanprovisions,asobligatedbySection172(c)oftheCleanAirAct,fortheportionofJacksonCountydesignatednonattainmentbyEPA(78FR47192)effectiveOctober4,2013,underthe2010sulfurdioxideNationalAmbientAirQualityStandard.Wehaveperformedacompletenessreviewofyoursubmittalagainstthecompletenesscriteriasetforthat40CFRPart51,AppendixV.WehavedeterminedthatthisSIPsubmissionsatisfiesthecompletenesscriteria.AfindingofcompletenessmerelyindicatesthatthesubmissionmeetsthecriteriathatanyplanmustsatisfyforEPAtotakerulemakingactiononit.AcompletenessfindingisnotafindingonthemeritsoftheplanorwhetheritmeetsEPA'sStateImplementationPlanapprovalrequirements.IfyouhaveanyquestionsorneedadditionalinformationpleasecontactDavidPeter,ofmystaff,atpeter.david@epa.govor(913)551-7397.fL...r....BeckyWeber(]·'-DirectorAirandWasteManagementDivision*PrintedonRecycledPaper
Motion Granted; Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 10, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00964-CR

CARLOS JULIO SABINO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 240th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13-DCR-062551

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

A written request to withdraw the notice of appeal, personally signed by 

appellant, has been filed with this court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Because this 

court has not delivered an opinion, we grant appellant’s request.

Accordingly, we order the appeal dismissed. We direct the clerk of the court 

to issue the mandate of the court immediately.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Busby, and Wise.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
I, Gianni P. Gatto, certify that:



1. I have 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 report on Form 10-K of
Daimler Trucks Retail Trust 2023-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);



2. Based on my knowledge, the
Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all
of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report
is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;



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



5. All of the reports on assessment
of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance
with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation
AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed 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 have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: U.S. Bank Trust Company,
National Association, as Indenture Trustee.



Date: March 28, 2024



| | By:                                                                                                                          | /s/ Gianni P. Gatto
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------
| | Name:  Gianni P. Gatto                                                                                                      
| | Title:  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (senior officer
    in charge of the servicing function for the Servicer)
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

APRIL 8, 2015 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b). 

1. Case No. SD33277 

 Re: STATE OF MISSOURI, 

 Respondent, 

 vs. 

 JUSTIN C. GRAY, 

 Appellant.