alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

# AGENCY:

Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of renewal of the Royalty Policy Committee.

# SUMMARY:

Following consultation with the General Services Administration, notice is hereby given that the Secretary of the Interior is renewing the Royalty Policy Committee.

The Royalty Policy Committee provides advice to the Secretary of the Interior on the management of Federal and Indian mineral leases and revenues under the laws governing the Department of the Interior. The Committee will also review and comment on revenue management and other mineral and energy-related policies, and provide a forum to convey views representative of mineral lessees, operators, revenue payors, revenue recipients, governmental agencies, and public interest groups. The Royalty Policy Committee reports to the Secretary of the Interior through the Director of the Office of Natural Resources Revenue.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Shirley Conway, Office of Natural Resources Revenue; 1801 Pennsylvania Avenue; Washington, DC 20006; telephone number (202) 254-5554.

## Certification

                        I hereby certify that the renewal of the Royalty Policy Committee is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department of the Interior by 43 U.S.C. 1331*et. seq.*

 Dated: April 2, 2012.

Ken Salazar,

Secretary of the Interior.

[FR Doc. 2012-9155 Filed 4-16-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-T2-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                                        DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                                                    9,127
<SECURITIES>                                                             19,937
<RECEIVABLES>                                                            55,070
<ALLOWANCES>                                                              3,693
<INVENTORY>                                                              35,656
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                        126,395
<PP&E>                                                                   20,812
<DEPRECIATION>                                                            9,323
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                          155,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                    23,005
<BONDS>                                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                                 22,999
<OTHER-SE>                                                               58,944
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                            155,550
<SALES>                                                                 123,443
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                        128,860
<CGS>                                                                    66,323
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                            66,323
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                              0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                          1,116
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                           48
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                          15,291 
<INCOME-TAX>                                                              5,275
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                      10,016 
<DISCONTINUED>                                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                             10,016
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                              2.18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                                 0
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-60053 Summary Calendar

__________________ THERAL DARNELL TERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus STEVE PUCKETT; EDWARD HARGETT, SUPERINTENDENT, MISSISSIPPI STATE PENITENTIARY; JOAN ROSS, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:95-CV-303-D-A

- - - - - - - - - - April 26, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Theral Darnell Terry appeals from the district court's dismissal of his civil rights complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). He contends that he was denied a classification hearing before an impartial classification committee, that he was not provided with a written statement of the reasons for the change in his classification, that he was denied his annualNo. 96-60053 -2- classification hearing, and that his placement in close confinement prevents him from earning good-time credits. We have reviewed the record and, construing the dismissal as pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), find no reversible error. See Holloway v. Gunnell , 685 F.2d 150, 152 (5th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.
\ltW21-Oz

&&,&£&/' J£r/^ ^

Jkik r^_

J£fy4&Zs*<*s &S* N^^-

A_\x^v v

l/ydnnnAtt

Mi/

7"

£• :^0:v/%j^

5 ^2^.

^22i^L^J^2^i2»_^^_^^^l!£

^ \s^<//cl^> 'Say fc

75^ 5/&*Ly> __

f&L-i^nsJ^

vwr
**z zf^7 JJ&J&/'ft?

///i///y^' ^

.e£ ife^=^

jfo^ ^//w^ ;r 4yffi T£< ^/-^ />.r^ / 7^y

ii/ '"A.•*s'^ yZ?f-Y)h~J ^/^^ •^/^^x£y//

•/v>< •X ^ v^/ /^-Ai^

•j£L

T&LdkZJl- '/&*? /c^y/cD

fc/^
V \y v ih^fJc^((i •My^y^y^fy^^y^Cf^^ Q»wy>"<T^-f:: as*q y/L /^J / j-rft 3,17 riiita&r > 1.1Jj^r V^-V

-^ \- S/y£ tzQujAS 'P4f;g yyjyf-4 ^G^^yy-frrtss >

V^X^ -f^o'^yis )^£>^XS ^y^g_x ^^yy^^'cticrysatU?

y y y ^^c^ /& 4&^—$p^r <^^5g_ Y^^ XJM4^ A^r^s- /^&s(• &<j-\\ A'r-j^y^ .

^ W^^ :^/y.s- ^y^/ ^TZ.

y^yS&P "^S rja.-Jo. .^x>:~3.y

t yS ^ •? 3 ^ ^^^" •*;r*~,y>xy:.yx <? ^ &^s ^ y

m ^ s1 ^'y^^yr^C"^/^ x^-^y y y^^^'y^y^

c*^jy)$y^ Wyy^,/ 4^_^b /W

Mo^wv ys^ ^yi>^ &£y/ CQ i^^^j c/q, ^.psy-^^- •*&•/• yytys~%4; j// faffa, •

w/b(/t+ Asf^'^, y^/i^c^z ./a /fe/y ^yyyy"'' *a*2z,
f/yy/o-h, -yyy0y^^c>^4y7^y=--r> p''~- s~<^r)- *ji~.,^~*

/'Q/yi-l'S cr£\Aa>%3jk• .77X1*- 'py&f'ffAi £Cy3L

4^^

4£_^^4 J, y ^ ^.-^-y _, y^y £_, '^—S 7" ="= SsjyyQy^ ""^ ' ^ /A/^y

* Ifez^:

^ 0/y y/n/^ y^Aiy^.yyly^ /WO& tyLy

rV/^ \y^yiM )^^aa^7

/ fj^yj<* yj ^^ /^Ay

/ ^)<^9JT3T

yy^ /2t*s-/f*/4P y y3*3r

~*n> yy^^yy\ y%yz?=z <? jP^^/^yz^?

yy f~-4n> -A#*>*y y^^/^ ^ smA^^y *%/'/* /yyAy- £faas<A> OsK^k/ fty^

—^ a*7*?a y/ r^=>y s y-—y~? '-— ;

£S** / yyy^d>^, /Xy^ <Tcy^y

-To

r jut—fas /7# Ay^-y4^^^y^

a' Z^y//£///y/^, yy& ]c£s? Ao

u7^^Q%- S^^y hy Ay .y-y^A/ tr<sc^a^
NAME

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

NON-MAILABLE CORRESPONDENCE

^lji(Klar\A L TDCJ-crp# ] <50YQ.tt

Does not qualify for sealed correspondence per Board Policy 03.91;

Has an incorrect return address per Board Policy 03.91; '"\f-£^c, $flO C_ \

Has an incorrect address for the legal, special or media correspondent; (\jQ OJ^^A' OLAscsLJC-xi.^—>

Person listed onNegative Mailing List; /"") P>*-\ ) O-^O J?

Addressed to an offender that has not been approved;

Contains illustrations or written messages on envelope;

In-cell recreational art items must be mailed via property officer;

Uninspectable homemade card/ envelope

Envelope does not contain postage

Transfer of offender property-violation ofAD03.72

<y.-£kiLg? yy\y Mailroom/Law Library Representative Signature Date

nn/rn n a ;y 3S
ra> A ^y ^zyosKz- JY ORDER SLIP -tc&L. •y? " 6"f COM.WHSS yu

j

-"^ Z^ '^NJJMBErl • NAME

LOCATION -—-—^bw3

SO-7 (Rev. 2/86)

STATE

sJqJyjy<sj&
^yyA^=^

jy^y^yyyy^

Ail A"*>s~?s~frszL+A

•y my

JAoy ^%//^^^^:

<s^y^/ y?^A'u-^A>'

^b^AL^y
yZ-A>&rtA r«as// ~<Sf<y, --- y ITEM-DESCBIPTION

V/ A,

y<A&
^^Zg^c.VATnyc^

AfiM yz&fc ey&A<kj

At*i >')jv/j sioyte/VoZ

zAyy?y t'&jo-nyitio

^^A^ykyA^ ****** J. (A*'// j^/ zAQl sy 'c/'y A*

£yy £y-7y-y<7J"^> j^jA &<? £.

cy^t/^o^^ /j> /3yA<?A y,/A <k

?zjy9yrTMyyr, a^ ' 9^-^ y,c^A
a^y^yyy^ 'ty

NAME

LOCATION

SO-7 (Rev. 2/86)

: •_- -V- - - —

DO NOT TEAR! rADI 1CAWFF1ILL1 LEAVE FULL LENGTH!

-ffyyym^ A-A-A-^ DATE
%~

-^35,^/A

^Af& 4^¥&/4yi

- '$~oofj£ ^vy$y •

Aoci\c$5
#### Carroll W. STEWART, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 17861.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Sept. 17, 1963.

Decided Oct. 10, 1963.

Mr. David Booth Beers, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.

Mr. Robert D. Devlin, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker and Harold H. Titus, Jr., Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before Danaher, Wright and McGowan, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon the appeal of a conviction for housebreaking and larceny, reversal is sought solely by reason of an alleged error of the trial judge in refusing, upon request, to charge that the jury might find appellant guilty of unlawful entry as a lesser offense necessarily included in that of housebreaking. Rule 31(c), Fed.R.Crim.P.

 While in some -circumstances, as here, the elements of unlawful entry (D.C.Code § 22-3102 (1961)) are comprehended within those of housebreaking (D.C.Code § 22-1801 (1961)), the latter requires also a finding of larcenous intent. Since the jury found the appellant guilty of larceny as well as housebreaking, it must have determined that larcenous intent was present in this case. Under these circumstances we need not pursue the issue of whether the failure to give the requested charge was error, since, even if it be so regarded, it was harmless in its impact upon the jury’s disposition of the crimes charged in the indictment.

Affirmed.
Cattle Contract Library –

Kansas City Meeting

4/19/22
Analysis of 5R Shipment Data to MPR Report 

“National Weekly Direct Beef Type Price 

Distribution” (slide 1)

• Sample Period

• 1/3/22 through 2/14/22

• Sample Type

• 5R Program cattle

• Natural

• Dressed formula net

• Axes are a bit distorted...the green/blue 

bars (MPR) and blue line is 5R

• For the purposes of confidentiality, values 

have been left off the X-axis

• Over this 12 week period, 5 Rivers constituted 3,180 head of the 4,787 head 

within this category

• 66.43% of the sample total
Analysis of 5R Shipment Data to MPR Report 

“National Weekly Direct Beef Type Price 

Distribution” (slide 2)

• Sample period

• 1/3/22 through 2/14/22

• Sample type

• Conventional/commodity type cattle

• Live formula net

• For the purposes of confidentiality, 

values have been left off the X-axis

• Keep in mind!

• Dark blue bars are the national 

numbers

• This is a sample of ONLY our TX/OK 

yards...imagine how small the MPR 

volume would get if limited by 

region One week sample from early Feb 2022...in one category 

we were +50% of the sample!!!
District of Columbia 

Court of Appeals 

No. 13-AA-0700

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TAXICAB COMMISSION,

Petitioner,

v. TAXI-00004-13 

SHARANJIT SINGH,

Respondent.

BEFORE: McLeese and Thompson, Associate Judges; and Pryor, Senior 

Judge.

ORDER

On consideration of the motion filed by the District of Columbia Office of 

Administrative Hearings requesting that this court publish its memorandum opinion and 

judgment, no opposition having been filed, and it further appearing that the mandate 

issued on March 4, 2015, it is

ORDERED that the Clerk shall recall the mandate issued on March 4, 2015. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to publish the memorandum opinion and 

judgment is granted, and the Clerk issue the attached opinion forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Copies to:

Richard C. Welch, Esq. Jamarle Thomas

1920 L Street, NW – Suite 400 Paralegal Specialist

Washington, DC 20036 Office of Administrative Hearings

Rachel Lukens, Esq. Todd S. Kim, Esq.

Supervisory Attorney-Advisor Solicitor General – DC 

Office of Administrative Hearings
### SERVED : OCTOBE R26 , 201 0 U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N -''^'•'WnD ^

OFFIC EO FHEARING S ':'^ ROPEf M WASHINGTON , D C IN TH E MATTE RO F AI RZFLYE^ GSERVICE , INC . FA A DOCKE T NO . CPIOSWOOIO (Civi l Penalt y Action ) FDM S NO . FAA-2010-097 4 NOTIC EO FASSIGNMEN T O FPROCEEDIN G Thi s proceedin g (heretofore designateda s Cas e No . 2009SW910051 ) ha s bee n assigne d t o th e undersigned . Al l future pleading s an dothe r communication s regardin g thi s proceedin g shal l b e serve do n th e Judge , th e FA A Hearin g Docket , an dth e othe r person s o n th e attache d Servic e List . V i e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t

l i _FA A Docke t No . CPIOSWOOI

O (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON ECOP Y Laurenc e E . Rohl , Presiden t Ai r ZFlyin g Service , Inc. , Responden t 35 5 Richmon dRd. , Hangar 5 Richmon dHeights , O H 4414 3 TEL : FAX : Agne s M . Rodriguez , Complainant' s Counse l Enforcemen t

Division , AGC-30 0 Offic e o f th e Chie f Coimse l Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 TEL : 202-267-726 8 FAX : 202-267-510 6 Th e Honorabl e Rormi e A . Yoder , Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mE12-32 0 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-214 2 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service was b y U.S . Mail . Fo r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e the followin g address : Federa

l Aviation Administration , 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 .

- 2 -
1

The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, United States District Judge for the

District of Nebraska. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-2970

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District 

* of Nebraska.

Dion M. Hinton, also known as *

Bryon Jay Smith, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 3, 2004

Filed: June 8, 2004 

___________

Before MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, FAGG, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Dion M. Hinton pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 50 grams

or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine base (crack), in violation of

21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1). The district court1

 sentenced him to 262 months

imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. On appeal, his counsel has moved to

withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and

Mr. Hinton has filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.
-2-

After careful review, we find the ineffective-assistance claims raised by

counsel and Mr. Hinton are not properly before us. See United States v. Jackson,

204 F.3d 812, 815 (8th Cir. 2000). The other arguments Mr. Hinton raises are also

unavailing. The convictions Mr. Hinton challenges qualify him for career-offender

status regardless whether the sentences were suspended or served (and nothing in the

record supports Mr. Hinton’s contention that either sentence was suspended), as the

convictions are crimes of violence "punishable" by imprisonment for a term

exceeding 1 year. See U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, comment. (n.1) ("prior felony conviction"

means federal or state conviction for offense punishable by death or imprisonment for

term exceeding 1 year, regardless whether such offense is specifically designated as

felony and regardless of actual sentence imposed); United States v. Gonzales,

220 F.3d 922, 926 (8th Cir. 2000) (unsentenced guilty plea is prior conviction for

purposes of § 4B1.1). Whether the unlawful-sexual-intercourse offense could in the

future be reduced to a misdemeanor is also irrelevant for career-offender purposes.

Cf. Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 28-29 (2003) (though California courts have

discretion to reduce "wobbler" offense to misdemeanor, "it remains a felony for all

purposes 'unless and until the trial court imposes a misdemeanor sentence.' "

(citations omitted)). 

Having found no nonfrivolous issues after reviewing under Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

______________________________
Lentils (total)

Count Defects IADM FM

811 Min: 0.0 0.0 0.0

Max: 46.0 2.6 19.6

Avg: 1.10 0.11 0.18

US #1 US #2 US #3 SG

608 115 15 73

75% 14% 2% 9%

385 IADM results certified

Lentils (12/64)

Count Defects IADM FM

494 Min: 0.0 0.0 0.0

Max: 46.0 2.6 2.4

Avg: 1.32 0.15 0.09

US #1 US #2 US #3 SG

388 67 13 26

78% 14% 3% 5%

154 IADM results certified

Lentils (9/64)

Count Defects IADM FM

311 Min: 0.0 0.0 0.0

Max: 6.8 2.3 6.1

Avg: 0.76 0.08 0.26

US #1 US #2 US #3 SG

217 48 2 44

70% 15% 1% 14%

230 IADM results certified

FAQ Summary - 2022

9/30/2022

Lentils (7/64)

Count Defects IADM FM

6 Min: 0.0 0.0 0.0

Max: 1.2 - 19.6

Avg: 0.48 - 3.67

US #1 US #2 US #3 SG

3 - - 3

50.0% 50.0%

1 IADM results certified
SYDP

Weevil Damage OCL Bleach CR

Min: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Max: 36.4 22.0 3.0 6.9 20.7

Avg: 0.61 0.91 0.07 0.10 2.18

Count US #1 US #2 US #3 SG

659 394 100 47 118

60% 15% 7% 18%

SGDP

Weevil Damage OCL Bleach CR

Min: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Max: 95.9 18.2 2.4 18.0 30.1

Avg: 1.95 0.76 0.03 0.60 1.78

Count US #1 US #2 US #3 SG

764 339 138 87 200

44% 18% 11% 26%

MOTTLED DRY PEAS

Weevil Damage OCL CR

Min: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Max: 33.9 2.9 0.0 5.3

Avg: 2.15 0.41 0.00 1.00

Count US #1 US #2 US #3 US SG

43 17 7 5 14

40% 16% 12% 32%

Chickpeas (Garbanzo Bean)

(TOTAL)

Count #1 #2 #3 SS

874 717 39 25 93

82% 4% 3% 11%

Damage Splits

Min: 0.0 0.0

Max: 86.3 97.5

Avg: 2.43 2.40

Grade results based on Damage only, not Total Defects
Chickpeas (Garbanzo Bean)

(18/64)

Count #1 #2 #3 SS

584 467 31 21 65

80% 5% 4% 11%

Damage Splits

Min: 0.0 0.0

Max: 61.6 97.5

Avg: 2.71 2.48

Grade results based on Damage only, not Total Defects

Chickpeas (Garbanzo Bean)

(16/64)

Count #1 #2 #3 SS

207 189 3 1 14

91% 1% <1% 7%

Damage Splits

Min: 0 0

Max: 86.3 33.1

Avg: 1.53 1.93

Grade results based on Damage only, not Total Defects
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A15A1131. TERRANCE ROSS v. FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE

CORPORATION.

This case began as a dispossessory action in magistrate court. Following an

adverse ruling, defendant Terrance Ross appealed to the superior court, which also

ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Rossthen filed this direct appeal. We lack jurisdiction.

“[A]ppeals from decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions of lower

courts by certiorari or de novo proceedings shall be by application for discretionary

appeal.” Bullock v. Sand, 260 Ga. App. 874, 875 (581 SE2d 333) (2003); see also

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1). Because Ross did not follow the proper procedure for

requesting appellate review in this case, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, which

is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

04/06/2015

April 06, 2015
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00030-CV

David PERALTA,

Appellant

v.

MASSACHUSSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 333462

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 8, 2015

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

The trial court signed a final judgment on October 16, 2014. Appellant’s notice of appeal 

was due to be filed on November 17, 2014. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(a). Appellant filed a notice 

of appeal on November 18, 2014. A motion for extension of time in which to file the notice of 

appeal was due on December 1, 2014, but was not filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. 

A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when an appellant, acting in good 

faith, files a notice of appeal beyond the time allowed by Rule 26.1 but within the fifteen-day grace 

period provided by Rule 26.3 for filing a motion for extension of time. See Verburgt v. Dorner, 
04-15-00030-CV

959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997) (construing the predecessor to Rule 26); Dimotsis v. State Farm 

Lloyds, 966 S.W.2d 657, 657 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (stating same under current 

Rule 26). However, the appellant must offer a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice 

of appeal in a timely manner. See id.; TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3, 10.5(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, on March 

13, 2015, this court ordered appellant to file, no later than March 23, 2015, a response presenting 

a reasonable explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal in a timely manner. Our order 

cautioned appellant that if he failed to respond within the time provided, the appeal would be

dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c). Appellant has not responded to our order.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

- 2 -