alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered April 11, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-01653-CV

THE CITY OF PLANO, Appellant

V.

THE POE LIVING TRUST, MARCUS POE TRUSTEE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 296-04259-2011

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s April 9, 2013 motion to extend time to file its reply 

brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS that any reply brief be filed by April 18, 

2013.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
#### In the Matter of Meadowbrook Plaza Associates, Inc., Appellant, v Board of Assessors et al., Respondents.

—In a proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7 to review a real estate tax assessment of the petitioner’s real property for the tax year 1989/1990, the petitioner appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Rossetti, J.), entered February 23, 1990, as denied that branch of its motion which was for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the tax assessment was illegal pursuant to RPTL 1805.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

*745In this tax certiorari proceeding, the petitioner, the owner of a parcel of property in Nassau County, sought partial summary judgment on the issue of its entitlement to a transitional assessment of the increase in the land portion of the tax assessment of the property pursuant to RPTL 1805. We find that the record before us presents no issue of fact as to the petitioner’s entitlement to that relief. The respondents made no allegations and produced no evidence to dispute the petitioner’s proof of the amount of the increase or its allegation that the increase was not excludable from the transitional limitations under the exceptions enumerated in RPTL 1805 (5). Contrary to the respondents’ contention, the new construction on the petitioner’s property does not prevent the entire increase from being phased-in pursuant to the transitional assessment provisions of RPTL 1805 *(see, Matter of Nuzzolese v Board of Assessors,*172 AD2d 611). Therefore, the land portion of the increase must be phased-in pursuant to the provisions of RPTL 1805. Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
```

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code), the undersigned officer of
Finlay Enterprises, Inc., (the "Company") does hereby certify with respect to
the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 29,
2006 (the "Report") 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 Company.

Date: June 8, 2006

                                        /s/ Bruce Zurlnick
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Bruce E. Zurlnick
                                        Senior Vice President, Treasurer and
                                        Chief Financial Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1300 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1300

    To provide for a temporary safe harbor for certain failures by 
                individuals to pay estimated income tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2019

 Ms. Judy Chu of California (for herself, Mr. Lewis, Ms. Sanchez, Mr. 
 Pascrell, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Gomez, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Evans, Mr. Brendan 
  F. Boyle of Pennsylvania, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Ms. Sewell of 
 Alabama, Mr. Danny K. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Higgins of New York, and 
 Mr. Blumenauer) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                    the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To provide for a temporary safe harbor for certain failures by 
                individuals to pay estimated income tax.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Taxpayer Penalty Protection Act of 
2019''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY SAFE HARBOR FOR FAILURE BY INDIVIDUALS TO PAY 
              ESTIMATED INCOME TAX.

    In the case of a taxable year beginning in 2018--
            (1) In general.--Section 6654(d)(1)(B) of the Internal 
        Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied--
                    (A) by substituting ``80 percent'' for ``90 
                percent'' each place such term appears in clause (i) of 
                such section, and
                    (B) by substituting ``80 percent'' for ``100 
                percent'' in clause (ii) of such section.
            (2) Individuals with adjusted gross income of $150,000.--In 
        the case of an individual to whom section 6654(d)(1)(C) of such 
        Code would (but for this paragraph) apply, section 6654 of such 
        Code shall be applied without regard to--
                    (A) paragraph (1)(B) of this Act, and
                    (B) section 6654(d)(1)(C) of such Code.
            (3) Farmers and fishermen.--Section 6654(i) of such Code 
        shall be applied without regard to this Act.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART THREE

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

UNION POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS

TITLE IV

FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS, SERVICES AND CAPITAL

FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS, SERVICES AND CAPITAL

CHAPTER 3

SERVICES

Article 57

(ex Article 50 TEC)

(ex Article 50 TEC)

Services shall be considered to be ‘services’ within the meaning of the Treaties where they are normally provided for remuneration, in so far as they are not governed by the provisions relating to freedom of movement for goods, capital and persons.

‘Services’ shall in particular include:

| (a) | activities of an industrial character; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

activities of an industrial character;

| (b) | activities of a commercial character; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

activities of a commercial character;

| (c) | activities of craftsmen; |
| --- | --- |

(c)

activities of craftsmen;

| (d) | activities of the professions. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

activities of the professions.

Without prejudice to the provisions of the Chapter relating to the right of establishment, the person providing a service may, in order to do so, temporarily pursue his activity in the Member State where the service is provided, under the same conditions as are imposed by that State on its own nationals.

---
#### Sandra Mae Turner LOPER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-76-594.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 5, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Feb, 28, 1977.

Don Anderson, Public Defender, Oklahoma City, for appellant.

Larry Derryberry, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BLISS, Judge:

Appellant, Sandra Mae Turner Loper, hereinafter referred to as defendant was charged, tried and convicted in the Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CRF—75-2975, for the offense of Larceny of Merchandise from a Retailer, After Former Conviction of a Felony, and she was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of ten (10) years. From this judgment and sentence a timely appeal has been perfected to this Court.

A careful reading of the record, and a study of the brief, reveal no assignment of error which would justify modification or reversal. Therefore, pursuant to this Court’s authority founded in 20 O.S.1971, § 49, we find the judgment and sentence should be, and hereby is, AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P. J., and BUSSEY, J., concur.
Order filed, April 09, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00004-CV

____________

LAUREL MILLER AND ELIANA MILLER, Appellant

V.

DEBO HOMES, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 400th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 13-DCV-209822

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due April 03, 2015. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the record. 

The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not 

been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Vanessa Owens, the substitute court reporter, to file the record in 

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order. 

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

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

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

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

The Honorable James K. Singleton, Senior District Judge for the U.S. ***

District Court for Alaska, sitting by designation.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ENRIQUE ALCALA PEREZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73256

Agency Nos. A079-587-556

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 7, 2012** 

Pasadena, California

Before: D.W. NELSON and O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and SINGLETON,

Senior District Judge.*** 

Petitioner Enrique Alcala-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

FILED

NOV 09 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for registry

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1259. We deny the petition for review. 

1. Alcala-Perez’s admission of the charge in the Notice to Appear that he

entered the United States on September 12, 1971 does not establish his date of

entry for the purpose of his eligibility for registry. At the removal proceeding, both

the government and the IJ explained to Alcala-Perez that the date of his entry was

subject to dispute and that he needed to produce documents affirmatively

establishing that date to qualify for registry. Cf. Hakopian v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d

843, 847 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[A]t no point—either before or during Hakopian’s

hearing—did the government move to amend its Notice to Appear with respect to,

or otherwise contest, Hakopian’s stated date of entry.”). 

2. The IJ’s refusal to order the government to produce files related to AlcalaPerez’s earlier amnesty application did not deprive Alcala-Perez of “a reasonable

opportunity to present evidence on his behalf.” Ibarra-Flores v. Gonzales, 439

F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th

Cir. 2000)). Despite the government’s assurances that the files could be obtained

via a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request, Alcala-Perez’s counsel never

established that he made such a request. In light of Alcala-Perez’s failure to use the

established FOIA procedure to obtain the documents, it was reasonable for the IJ to

refuse to order the government to produce them.
3. Substantial evidence supports the decisions of the IJ and the BIA that

Alcala-Perez did not establish that he entered the United States before January 1,

1972. See Manzo-Fontes v. INS, 53 F.3d 280, 282 (9th Cir. 1995). Alcala-Perez’s

own testimony about his date of entry and his early activities in the United States

was internally contradictory. Further, Alcala-Perez testified that he rented an

apartment from Marina Gentil when he first moved to the United States in 1971,

but Gentil’s affidavit asserted that Alcala-Perez rented from her between 1972 and

1973.

PETITION DENIED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Linwood Thomas, Also Known as Thomas Linwood, Appellant.

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree *995(Penal Law § 220.39 [1]) and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16 [1]) for selling cocaine to an undercover police officer in the City of Buffalo on two separate occasions. On appeal, defendant contends that the convictions for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree should be dismissed in the interest of justice as non-inclusory concurrent counts with the sale counts *(see, People v Gaul,*63 AD2d 563, *lv denied*45 NY2d 780; *see also, People v Miranda,*151 AD2d 321, *lv denied*74 NY2d 815; *People v Troche,*141 AD2d 377, *lv denied*72 NY2d 962; *People v Perez,*139 AD2d 460, *affd*74 NY2d 637; *People v Chillis,*79 AD2d 872).

Although defendant correctly concedes that the possession charge is not a lesser included offense of the sale charge *(see, People v Weathersby,*44 NY2d 686), he requests that this Court exercise its discretion and dismiss the possession counts in the interest of justice. We reject this request and, contrary to the cases cited by defendant, we decline to exercise our discretion to dismiss those counts in the interest of justice. The two counts of possession of cocaine are non-inclusory concurrent counts with the criminal sale counts and we perceive no reason for dismissing those counts in the interest of justice. They are separate crimes.

In addition, we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the convictions. Although it appears that some police paperwork incorrectly listed the first sale as having taken place on February 15, 1989, the arresting officer testified that this was an error that was corrected after it was brought to her attention when she appeared to testify at the Grand Jury. Since the indictment correctly set forth the date of the first sale as February 14, 1989, and the police testified in accordance with the date set forth in the indictment, there is no merit to defendant’s claim that he was misled or unfairly prejudiced *(see, People v Morris,*61 NY2d 290). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(see, People v Malizia,*62 NY2d 755, 757, *cert denied*469 US 932), we find that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s identification and conviction.

Because defendant never requested that the People disclose the identity of the informant or produce the informant at trial, that issue has not been preserved for appellate review *(see, People v Fedrick,*172 AD2d 1043; *cf., People v Brown,*84 AD2d 910).

The court did not abuse its discretion in imposing concurrent indeterminate sentences of 3 to 9 years and we find no *996basis for a modification in the interest of justice. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kasler, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Denman, Balio, Lawton and Lowery, JJ.
PAUL MITCHELL PORRETTO,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-1362

Opinion filed April 14, 2015.

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel -- Original 

Jurisdiction.

Paul Mitchell Porretto, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is denied on the 

merits.

ROBERTS, SWANSON, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7505

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

FRANK LEWIS BARBER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-92-88-S, CA-96-192-4)

Submitted: February 27, 1997 Decided: March 13, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Danny Thomas Ferguson, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney,

Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order granting

in part and denying in part his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Appellant failed to raise his Fourth Amendment claim on

direct appeal and he has not shown prejudice from his counsel's

failure to raise the claim. See Whren v. United States, ___ U.S.

___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4409 (U.S. June 10, 1996) (No. 95-5841); United

States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 167 (1982). Further, this Court will

not second-guess counsel's tactical decision regarding crossexamination of a Government witness. Goodson v. United States 564

F.2d 1071, 1072 (4th Cir. 1977). Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the

district court. United States v. Barber, Nos. CR-92-88-S; CA-96-

192-4 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 27, 1996). 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
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 Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0511]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Current Good Manufacturing Practices and Related Regulations for Blood and Blood Components; and Requirements for Donor Testing, Donor Notification, and ‘ Lookback' ” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850, 301-796-7726,                         *ila.mizrachi@fda.hhs.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    On January 3, 2012, the Agency submitted a proposed collection of information entitled “Current Good Manufacturing Practices and Related Regulations for Blood and Blood Components; and Requirements for Donor Testing, Donor Notification, and ‘Lookback’ ” to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0116. The approval expires on April 30, 2015. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain.*

Dated: April 16, 2012.

Leslie Kux,

Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. 2012-9531 Filed 4-19-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-P
SERVED MAY 12, 2010 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS •-, ., , .,^ 

WASHINGTON, DC ' '• 

IN THE MATTER OF 

WESTERN AVIATORS, INC. 

FAA DOCKET NO. CP10NM0003 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMSNo. FAA-2010-0314 

NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDING 

This proceeding (heretofore designated as Case No. 2009NM910017) has been assigned 

to Administrative Law Judge Richard C. Goodwin. All future pleadings and other 

communications regarding this proceeding shall be served on the Judge, the FAA Hearing 

Docket, and the other persons on the attached Service List. 

Ronnie A. Yode 

Chief Administrative Eajj^Jtidge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP10NM0003 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building—Suite 2W1000' 

ONE COPY 

Richard L. Fowler, President 

Western Aviators, Inc., Respondent 

2533 Lanyon Drive 

Longmont, CO 80503 

TEL: 303-776-2733 

FAX: 303-774-8435 

Laura E. Jennings, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel, AGC-30 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-3452 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor, Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

' Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wrigiit Building—Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430.