alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00247-CV

IN RE Jerry Alex CORONA and Sonia Luna Corona

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 26, 2014

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED

On April 10, 2014, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the trial 

court’s order granting a new trial in the underlying personal injury litigation. The real party in 

interest filed a response to the petition on May 12, pursuant to this court’s order of April 16, 2014. 

Relators have advised this court that the parties have settled the underlying lawsuit and, 

therefore, the issues raised by the mandamus proceeding have become moot. Relators have 

requested that the mandamus petition be dismissed. Accordingly, this original mandamus 

proceeding is dismissed as moot. 

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2011-CI-08286, styled Alice Heugel v. Jerry Alex Corona and Sonia Luna 

Corona, pending in the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Laura Salinas presiding.
# Notes

# Weights

# data

# Annual Averages

# GTR Figure

Dollars per railcar mile
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JUAN NAZAHUA-RAMIREZ, a.k.a. Juan 

Ramirez,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-10327

D.C. No. 2:10-cr-01090-JAT

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding**

Submitted April 7, 2015***

Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Juan Nazahua-Ramirez appeals the 15-month sentence imposed upon 

revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The Honorable Howard D. McKibben, Senior United States District 

Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

APR 10 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 14-10327

and we affirm.

Nazahua-Ramirez contends the district court procedurally erred by failing to 

explain adequately its within-Guidelines sentence. We review for plain error, see 

United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 2009), and find none. 

The record, taken as a whole, reflects that the district court “considered the parties’ 

arguments and had a reasoned basis for exercising his own legal decisionmaking 

authority.” Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007). 

Nazahua-Ramirez further contends that his sentence is substantively 

unreasonable in light of the statutory sentencing factors and his having already 

been punished for the underlying criminal conduct that resulted in the revocation. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Nazahua-Ramirez’s 

sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence is 

substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and 

the totality of the circumstances, including the need to deter Nazahua-Ramirez 

from illegally returning to the United States.

AFFIRMED.
Opinion issued November 21, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-17-00489-CR

———————————

KENNETH BENJAMIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 10th District Court

Galveston County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 16CR1879

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Kenneth Benjamin, pleaded guilty to the felony offense of accident 

involving serious bodily injury. See TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 550.021(c)(1)(B). The 

trial court found appellant guilty and, in accordance with the terms of appellant’s 
2

plea bargain agreement with the State, sentenced appellant to 4 years’ incarceration. 

Acting pro se, appellant filed a notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

In a plea bargain case, a defendant may only appeal those matters that were 

raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial or after getting the trial court’s 

permission to appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). An appeal must be dismissed 

if a certification showing that the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made 

part of the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d).

The trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See id. The 

trial court’s certification states that this is a plea bargain case and that the defendant 

has no right of appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2). The record supports the trial 

court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2005). Because appellant has no right of appeal, we must dismiss this appeal. See 

Chavez v. State, 183 S.W.3d 675, 680 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“A court of appeals, 

while having jurisdiction to ascertain whether an appellant who plea-bargained is 

permitted to appeal by Rule 25.2(a)(2), must dismiss a prohibited appeal without 

further action, regardless of the basis for the appeal.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
* 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. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 96-60785 Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

EUGENE W. COSSEY, Petitioner,
VERSUS SEA-LAND SERVICES, INC., and DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.

______________________________________________________

Petition for Review of the Decision and Order of the Benefits Review Board

(95-1593)

______________________________________________________ June 3, 1997 Before DAVIS, EMILIO GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Our review of the record persuades us that: 1) the Benefits Review Board correctly found that the Administrative Law Judge's findings of fact were based on substantial record evidence; and 2) the Benef its Review Board committed no legal error in arriving at its award.2

AFFIRMED.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1145 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit former Members and 

elected officers of Congress from lobbying Congress at any time after 

leaving office. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 11, 2019 

Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit former 

Members and elected officers of Congress from lobbying 

Congress at any time after leaving office. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Banning Lobbying and 

5 Safeguarding Trust Act’’ or the ‘‘BLAST Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING FORMER MEMBERS AND OFFICERS 

7 OF CONGRESS FROM LOBBYING CONGRESS. 

8 (a) PROHIBITION.—Section 207(e)(1) of title 18, 

9 United States Code, is amended to read as follows: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1145 IH

1 ‘‘(1) MEMBERS AND ELECTED OFFICERS OF

2 CONGRESS.—Any person who is a Senator, a Mem3 ber of the House of Representatives, or an elected 

4 officer of the Senate or the House of Representa5 tives and who, after that person leaves office, know6 ingly makes, with the intent to influence, any com7 munication to or appearance before any Member, of8 ficer, or employee of either House of Congress or 

9 any employee of any other legislative office of the 

10 Congress, on behalf of any other person (except the 

11 United States) in connection with any matter on 

12 which such former Senator, Member, or elected offi13 cial seeks action by a Member, officer, or employee 

14 of either House of Congress, in his or her official ca15 pacity, shall be punished as provided in section 216 

16 of this title.’’. 

17 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 207(e)(2) 

18 of such title is amended— 

19 (1) in the heading, by striking ‘‘OFFICERS AND

20 STAFF’’ and inserting ‘‘STAFF’’; 

21 (2) by striking ‘‘an elected officer of the Senate, 

22 or’’; 

23 (3) by striking ‘‘leaves office or employment’’ 

24 and inserting ‘‘leaves employment’’; and 

25 (4) by striking ‘‘former elected officer or’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1145 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply with respect to an individual who 

3 leaves office on or after the date of the enactment of this 

4 Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 3 - 0448 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 3 - CE - 0 07 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter togeth er. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**
<Page>


                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
                   -----------------------------------------



We hereby consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Independent
Public Accountants" in the Statement of Additional Information and use of our
report dated February 17, 2000 on the financial statements of First Fortis Life
Insurance Company in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 11 (Form N-4 No.
33-71686) to the Registration Statement and related Prospectus and Statement of
Additional Information of First Fortis Life Insurance Company for the
registration of flexible premium deferred combination variable and fixed
annuity contracts.

Minneapolis, Minnesota                                     /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
April 17, 2002
**
**Exhibit 31.4**

CERTIFICATION 

I, Richard A. Maue,certify that: 

 
 (1)
I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Crane Company;

 
 (2)
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 
 (3)
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 
 (4)
The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 
 a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; 

 
 b)
[Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos.33-8238/34-47986 and 33-8392/34-49313];

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

 
 d)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 
 (5)
The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing equivalent functions): 

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

 
 b)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

By /s/ Richard A. Maue
Executive Vice PresidentChief Financial OfficerMarch 30, 2023**
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

-- -- -- --

NO. 14-0888

DR. RICHARD MALOUF AND

LEANNE MALOUF

v.

BRETT SHIPP

§

§

§

§

§

§

Dallas County,

5th District.

February 27, 2015

Petitioners' petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above and attached is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of

Texas in the case numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of

said Court under the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioner, DR. RICHARD MALOUF AND LEANNE

MALOUF, pay all costs incurred on this petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 13th day of April, 2015.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-83,610-01

EX PARTE LEONARD WAFER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 31,328-CR IN THE 13 DISTRICT COURT

TH

FROM NAVARRO COUNTY

ALCALA, J., filed a concurring opinion in which JOHNSON and RICHARDSON, JJ.,

joined.

CONCURRING OPINION

I respectfully concur in the Court’s order that remands this pro se habeas application

to the convicting court for further development of the record. I, however, do not join the

Court’s order because it fails to accurately track the statutory language in the Code of

Criminal Procedure, in that it improperly limits an indigent pro se habeas applicant’s

entitlement to the assistance of appointed post-conviction counsel to situations involving a

hearing on remand. As I previously explained in my concurring opinion in Ex parte Pointer,

in order to comply with the statutory requirements in the Code, this Court’s order should
Wafer - 2

instead more broadly require a habeas court to appoint counsel for an indigent pro se habeas

applicant whenever the court determines that the interests of justice require it. See Ex parte

Pointer, Nos. WR-84,786-01 & WR-84,786-02, 2016 WL 3193254 (Tex. Crim. App. June

8, 2016) (Alcala, J., concurring) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 1.051(d)(3) (providing

that an indigent habeas applicant “is entitled to have the trial court appoint an attorney to

represent him in . . . a habeas corpus proceeding if the court concludes that the interests of

justice require representation”)). Because the Court’s order fails to track the statutory

language in the Code of Criminal Procedure by incorrectly suggesting that the habeas court’s

authority to appoint post-conviction counsel is limited to situations involving a hearing on

remand, I cannot join the Court’s order. Aside from my disagreement with the language in

this Court’s order, I otherwise respectfully concur.

Filed: June 29, 2016

Do not publish
Administrative Offices Civil and Family Division Criminal Division Jury Office

(512) 854-9457 (512) 854-9457 (512) 854-9420 (512) 854-9669

fax: 854-4744 fax: 854-9549 fax: 854-4566 fax: 854-4457

Velva L. Price

Travis County District Clerk

Travis County Courthouse Complex

P.O. Box 679003

Austin, Texas 78767-9003

March 23, 2015

Mr. Jeffrey D. Kyle

Third Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 12547

Austin, Texas 78711-2547

Dear Mr. Kyle,

A clerk’s record in cause number, D-1-GV-14-000227 and Court of Appeals number 

03-54-00093-CV, styled, The City of Houston, Texas vs Greg Abbott, et al is due in your office 

today, March 23, 2015. This office has not received payment for this record as of today; however, the 

appellant is going to expedite the payment. Therefore, I am requesting an extension for filing. Thank 

you for your consideration.

If you have any questions, please contact me at (512) 854-5835.

Sincerely,

Bari Henson

Deputy Court Clerk II

(512) 854-5835
In the closing remarks of the February 14th, 2014 Congressional Research Service report authored by Renee Johnson, specialist in Agricultural Policy, entitled "Hemp as an agricultural commodity", it is noted that "the main obstacles facing this potential market are U.S. drug policies and DEA concerns about the ramifications of U.S. commercial hemp production."

In the final paragraph of the closing remarks, it is noted "nevertheless, the U.S. market for hemp-based products has a highly dedicated and growing demand base, as indicated by recent U.S. market and import data for hemp products and ingredients, as well as market trends for some natural foods and body care products. Given the existence of these small-scale, but profitable, niche markets for a wide array of industrial and consumer products, commercial hemp industry in the United States could provide opportunities as an economically viable alternative crop for some U.S. growers."

Thank you for considering my comment in support of allowing commercial domestic production of hemp crops.

Sincerely,

Douglas Pepe

Ames, IA
Attachment 1 

Catawba Site Visit Presentation
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    2,854,127
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    194,196
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         318,525
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       255,499
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,622,347
<COMMON>                                        48,515
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      696,137
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            328,802
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               1,073,454
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           78,093
<PREFERRED>                                     83,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,057,076
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              94,013
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  43,000
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  100,667
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                        2,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               1,091,044
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                3,622,347
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    1,776,233
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            95,021
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,420,362
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   1,515,383
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        260,850
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                            (10,498)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 250,352
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       105,710
<NET-INCOME>                                   144,642
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     13,149
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  131,493
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        91,208
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        3,280
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         359,230
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.71


</TABLE>
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 6, 2015

No. 04-12-00430-CR

Charles ARRINGTON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR1663

Honorable Sharon MacRae, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Rehearing is hereby 

GRANTED. The motion is due May 4, 2015.

_________________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 6th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court