alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-18-00116-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.E., Z.E., 

AND E.E., CHILDREN

------------

FROM THE 235TH DISTRICT COURT OF COOKE COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. CV16-00599

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

------------

We have considered Appellant’s verified motion to withdraw her notice of 

appeal from the trial court’s order terminating her parent-child relationships with 

children A.E., Z.E., and E.E. The motion specifically states, “After thoughtful 

consideration, Appellant decided it was in the children’s best interest to abandon 

the appeal.” It is the court’s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, 

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

 1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

PER CURIAM

PANEL: PITTMAN, WALKER, and MEIER, JJ.

DELIVERED: June 14, 2018
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Napoleon Valdez, Appellant.

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.), rendered June 29, 1989, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 3 years to life, and *IVi*to 4 *Vi*years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, who pleaded guilty as a jury was about to be empaneled for his trial, contends that his plea was involuntary as he was threatened with a heavier sentence if he did not plead guilty. The District Attorney and the court each advised defendant that if he were to proceed to trial or seek an adjournment of the trial, the previously made offer of three years to life imprisonment would be withdrawn. Additionally, the court informed defendant that "if’, during trial, he were to plead guilty to the entire indictment, including the A-I felony, the minimum prison sentence he could receive would be fifteen years to life. We do not believe that under these facts and circumstances, the plea could be said to have been improperly obtained.

Defendant’s claim that he was coerced into admitting an element of the weapons possession charge—intent to use the gun—was not raised in either a motion to vacate the judgment or to set aside the verdict and is consequently unpreserved. The record, in any event, demonstrates that the court carefully explored the issue of defendant’s intent and accepted defendant’s affirmative acknowledgment of this element only after a bench conference, and only after defendant had an opportunity to discuss the issue with his counsel.

Insofar as defendant’s informal application to withdraw his plea lacked any claim of impropriety, let alone facts supportive thereof *(see, e.g., People v Dixon,*29 NY2d 55), and given the fact that the court accepting the plea had no reason to believe the plea was unfair or inappropriate, the bargain was *377final *(see, e.g., People v Francis,*38 NY2d 150) and the instant claim, consequently, is meritless.

Finally, there is no merit to defendant’s argument that the court abused its discretion in refusing to grant defendant a fourth adjournment of sentencing to permit him to obtain new counsel in place of his private counsel. As noted by the sentencing court, during the one-month postponement of sentencing, defendant apparently made little or no effort to arrange for new counsel other than to have his brother search the courthouse halls for counsel on the very day he was sentenced.

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them also without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF BRUNO'S INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 30, 1999, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          65,953
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,980
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (517)
<INVENTORY>                                    178,140
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               294,966
<PP&E>                                         588,175
<DEPRECIATION>                                 317,989
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 606,682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          115,891
<BONDS>                                        400,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              255
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (537,597)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   606,682
<SALES>                                      1,883,227
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,883,227
<CGS>                                        1,478,453
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,478,453
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               453,828
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,385
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (52,439)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (52,439)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (52,439)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (2.06)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.8

                         MOSS ADAMS, LLP PROMISSORY NOTE



                                                               December 1 , 2000


$53,250.00


         FOR VALUE RECEIVED, ATLAS MINING COMPANY (herein called "Maker") hereby
promises to pay to the order of MOSS ADAMS, LLP (herein called "Holders") the
principal sum of Fifty three Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars & No/100
($53,250.00), plus interest from October 1, 2000, at the rate of 9.0% per annum,
on the unpaid principal until fully paid. Said principal and accrued interest
shall be paid by the maker at 601 W. Riverside, Suite 1800, Spokane, Washington
99201-0663, or at such other location as may be designated by the holder, as
follows: the principal and accrued interest shall be payable in equal monthly
installments of One Thousand Dollars & No/100 ($1,000.00), including interest,
which installments shall commence on December 18, 2000 and continue thereafter
on or before the same date of each succeeding calendar month until August 16,
2001 when the principal and interest balances are due and payable in their
entirety. This note may be prepaid in part or in full with accrued interest
without penalty at any time. From each monthly installment, there shall first be
deducted accrued interest and remainder shall be applied to principal.

         If any installment, whether principal or interest, is not paid as
provided above, or an event of default as defined in Agreement shall have
occurred, then the entire balance of principal and accrued interest shall become
immediately due and payable at the option of the holder hereof, and, thereafter,
bear interest at the maximum rate allowed by law.

         Each and every party to this note binds himself, jointly, and severally
hereon, as principal and not as surety, and all parties hereto, including
endorsers, sureties, and guarantors, hereby severally waive presentment, demand,
protest, notice of nonpayment hereof, any prior party, or any defense other than
actual payment in full hereof, and promise to pay, upon the defaults, all costs
of collection and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred or paid by the Holder in
protecting or enforcing its rights under this note. At the holder's option, the
venue of any suit upon this note may be laid in Spokane County, State of
Washington.



MAKER:  ATLAS MINING COMPANY

BY:   /S/ WM. T. JACOBSON
      ---------------------------

Title:      PRESIDENT
        -------------------------
P. 1



# OAR Box 1818 Prepped by OIlie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 7 ) ll-C- 4 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/6/20083:12:41 PM .._ _

Sheet 7 of 79P. 2 ,./ H '.•-•:-• • . . . > ; • i-3"7 V P A^

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y I -\V|^L.. « AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 48105 

# \~y OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N 

## JAH:.T!98 T

Mr . Rober t H . Elliot t - . 2832 2 Hoove r Road ' Warren , Michigan .4809 3 Dea r Mr . Elliott : In respons e t o you r Novembe r 15 , 198 6 lette r t o Le e Thoma s an d Decembe r 11 , 198 6 meeting wit h Richar d Wilcox , I a m replying t o you r concern s an d idea s regarding refuelin g vapo r controls . I appreciat e you r interes t i n thi s are a an d the alternativ e refueling contro l systemyo u offered . A s yo u know , EPAi s evaluating bot h Stag e I I an d onboar d refueling control s a s a mean s t o captur e refueling vapors . I f determine d feasibl e an d cos t effective , EP Ama ydecid e t o propos e th

e additio n o f onboar d contro l system s t o moto r vehicles . An

yonboar d proposa l woul d b e a performanc e standar d fo r moto r vehicle s an d no t a design standar d whic h require s a particula r onboar d systemdesign . A s such , EP Awoul d no t b e proposing an

yspecifi c contro l techniqu e fo r the vehicle , bu t instead woul d requir e tha t an ytechniqu e use d b e capabl e o f controlling refueling emission s ove r th e vehicle' s usefu l life . EP Ai s alway s intereste d in emissio n contro l concepts , bu t we normall yd o no t conduc t laboratoryevaluation s o f suc h devices . instead , I recommen d tha t yo u presen t you r onboar d systemdesign t o the appropriat e moto' r vehicl e manufacturers . The yar e i n a bette r positio n t o evaluat e variou s onboar d contro l technique s an d t o judg e whethe r or no t theywoul d b e capabl e o f meetin g a potentia l refueling emissio n standard , whil e als o meetin g DO T vehicl e safet ystandards , othe r EP A emissio n standards , an d t o evaluat e i f suc h technique s ar e consisten t wit h good engineering practices . Again , I appreciat e you r concern s regardin g onboar d contro l systems . Sincerel yyours , 

## ".•. . / / 7 ..A.'ii

- - " v^ 7

55 * ' Charle s L . Gray , Jr* . Directo r Emissio n Contro l Technolog yDivisio n
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-13-0000156

13-APR-2015

09:11 AM
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1770** 
HEPHZIBAH BATES, a/k/a Hattie Tea Jenkins

- Bates , Plaintiff

– Appellant , v. JIMMIE FALLON , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. ( 3:13

- cv - 0 0300

- REP )

Submitted : August 22, 2013 Decided: August 26, 2013

Before MOTZ, DIAZ , and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Hephzibah Bates, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Hephzibah Bates appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing Bates’ complaint as f rivolous . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bates v. Fallon , No. 3:13

- cv 00300

- REP (E.D. Va. May 28, 2013) . We dis pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4/15/2015 TDCJ Offender Details •V3. >33~° New Offender Search TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE TOCJ Home

Offender Information Details

Return to Search list

SID Number: 06162052

TDCJ Number: 01907706

Name: BRANN,GERALD D

Race: W

Gender: M

DOB: 1980-08-23

Maximum Sentence Date: 2019-01-20

Current Facility: LUTHER

Projected Release Date: 2016-02-18

Parole Eligibility Date: 2014-08-20

Offender Visitation Eligible: YES

Information provided is updated once daily during weekdays and multiple times per day

on visitation days. Because this information is subject to change, family members and

friends are encouraged to call the unit prior to traveling for a visit.

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE:

Scheduled Release Date:

Scheduled Release Type:

Scheduled Release Location:

Parole Review Information

Offender is not scheduled for release at this time.

Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Offense History:

Offense 0,, Sentence _ . „ %, Sentence (YY-MM- r, . Offense n , County Case No. ^J, Date Date . . . DD)

2007-07-02

FORGCOMM

INST/CHECK

2010-07-12 BEXAR 2008CR3084 1-00-00

FORGCOMM

http://offender.tdcj .state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=06162052 1/2
4/15/2015 TDCJ Offender Details

| 2007-07-10 INST/CHECK 2010-07-12 BEXAR 2008CR3084 1-00-00

J 2010-02-18 THEFT $1500-$20K

ELDER 2014-01-21 BEXAR 2012CR5048 5-00-00

Return to Search list

The Texas Department of Criminal Justice updates this information regularly to ensure that it is

complete and accurate, however this information can change quickly. Therefore, the information on

this site may not reflect the true current location, status, scheduled termination date, or other

information regarding an offender.

For questions and comments, you may contact the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, at (936)

295-6371 or webadmin(d)tdcj.texas.gov. This information is made available to the public and law

enforcement in the interest ofpublic safety. Any unauthorized use of this information is forbidden and

subject to criminal prosecution.

New Offender Search TDCJ Home Page

http://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=06162052 2/2
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-15-00162-CV

Style: Anthony J. Cann v. Hometown Bank, N.A.

Date motion filed*: April 1, 2015

Type of motions: Appellant’s First Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief

Parties filing motions: Appellant

Document to be filed: Appellant’s Brief

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: N/A

Number of extensions granted: 0 Current Due Date: N/A

Date Requested: N/A (90 days from deadline)

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: 

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

The motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief is denied as premature 

without prejudice to refiling because although the clerk’s record was filed on March

16, 2015, the briefing deadlines do not begin until after the reporter’s record has been 

filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a)(2).

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Laura Carter Higley

  

Date: April 7, 2015
ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

February 2, 2024

CR-2023-0381

Aleisha Danielle Parker v. State of Alabama (Appeal from Madison Circuit Court: 

CC-22-1572) 

NOTICE 

You are hereby notified that on February 2, 2024, the following action was 

taken in the above-referenced cause by the Court of Criminal Appeals:

Application for Rehearing Overruled.

D. Scott Mitchell, Clerk
EXHIBIT 12
 
 
 BORDEN CHEMICAL, INC.
 RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 (In thousands)
 
 2003
2002
2001
2000
1999Pre-tax income (loss) from continuing operations
$18,317
$(9,020)
$(167,437)
$(84,660)
$58,665Add back (deduct) minority interest expense (income)
163
900
(184)
(418)
(272)Interest expense
46,138
47,315
51,613
62,654
63,059Affiliated interest expense, net
558
1,402
11,488
19,146
22,240Estimated interest portion of rents
4,865
4,800
9,783
7,647
7,178$70,041
$45,397
$(94,737)
$4,369
$150,870Fixed ChargesInterest expense
$46,138
$47,315
$51,613
$62,654
$63,059Affiliated interest expense, net
558
1,402
11,488
19,146
22,240Interest portion of rents
4,865
4,800
9,783
7,647
7,178$51,561
$53,517
$72,884
$89,447
$92,477Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
1.4:1
(1)
(2)
(3)
1.6:1 
 For the year ended December 31, 2002, fixed charges exceeded earnings by $8,120For the year ended December 31, 2001, fixed charges exceeded earnings by $167,621For the year ended December 31, 2003, fixed charges exceeded earnings by $85,078
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

APRIL 15, 2015 

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

1. Case No. SD33183 

 Re: STATE OF MISSOURI, 

 Respondent, 

 vs. 

 CHARLIE KAVELLE WEST, 

 Appellant. 

2. Case No. SD33313 

 Re: STATE OF MISSOURI, 

 Respondent, 

 vs. 

 ROBERT C. MARTIN, 

 Appellant.
#### HUMBLE OIL *&*REFINING COMPANY, Appellant, v. S. S. BAY BELLE, Appellee; James McCONNELL, trading as McConnell Fuel Oil Co., and Carmen Santonello, trading as Santell Linen Service, Appellants, v. STEAM SHIP JOHN A. MESECK, Appellee.

Nos. 9137, 9138.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 20, 1963.

Decided Dec. 2, 1963.

Marvin C. Wahl, Baltimore, Md. (Wahl & Wahl, Solomon B. Levin, Baltimore, Md., and Warren, Chasan, Leyner & Holland, Jersey City, N. J., on brief), for appellants.

Samuel D. Slade, Philadelphia, Pa. (David H. Rosenbluth, Gilbert W. Oswald, Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, Philadelphia, Pa., and Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., on brief), for appellees.

Before HAYNSWORTH and BRYAN, Circuit Judges, and BARKSDALE, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

For the reasons set forth in its opinion filed herein, 215 F.Supp. 72 (1963), the judgment of the District Court in this case is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Formal Recommendation by the 

National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) 

to the National Organic Program (NOP)

 

Date: October 28, 2010 

Subject: Sunset Review of Sodium Citrate as listed on §205.605 (b), 

Nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients 

in or on processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with 

organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)).” 

Chair: Daniel G. Giacomini 

 

 

The NOSB hereby recommends to the NOP the following: 

Rulemaking Action X 

Guidance Statement 

Other 

 

Statement of the Recommendation (Including Recount of Vote): 

 

Sodium citrate is listed on 205.605(b). This substance was scheduled to sunset 

off the National List in 2012, was reviewed by the NOSB, and a motion was 

made for the re-listing of this substance at the October 2010 meeting. 

 

Rationale Supporting Recommendation (including consistency with 

OFPA and NOP): 

 

The Handling Committee’s recommendation covering this material is attached. 

There were no public written or verbal comments opposing the committee’s 

recommendation, and the material was recommended for relisting by the full 

NOSB as shown below. 

 

NOSB Vote: 

Moved: Joe Dickson Second: Steve DeMuri 

Yes: 14 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 0 Recusal: 0 

 
National Organic Standards Board 

Handling Committee 

Sunset Recommendation – 2012 

Sodium Citrate 

September 7, 2010 

List: 205.605 Nonagricultural (nonorganic) substances allowed as ingredients in 

or on processed products labeled as “organic” or “made with organic (specified 

ingredients or food group(s)).” 

(b) Synthetics allowed 

Sodium citrate 

Committee Summary 

The sodium salts of citric acid – monosodium citrate, disodium citrate and tri sodium 

citrate – are collectively listed as “sodium citrate.” These substances are used similarly 

as pH control/buffering agents and stabilizers in food products. The original technical 

review found sodium citrate to be consistent with the OFPA 2119(m) criteria. 

Review of the original recommendation, historical documents, and public comments 

does not reveal unacceptable risks to the environment, human, or animal health as a 

result of the use or manufacture of this material. There is no new information 

contradicting the original recommendation which was the basis for the previous NOSB 

decision to list this material. 

Committee Recommendation(s) 

The handling committee recommends the renewal of the following substances in this 

use category as published in the final rule: 

 Sodium citrate 

Committee Vote 

Motion: Joe Dickson Second: Steve DeMuri 

Yes: 6 No: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1253 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1253

                     One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
13507 Van Nuys Boulevard in Pacoima, California, as the ``Ritchie Valens 
                         Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RITCHIE VALENS POST OFFICE BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 13507 Van Nuys Boulevard in Pacoima, California, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Ritchie Valens Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Ritchie 
Valens Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```