alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 11-14-00258-CR

Marcus Dwight Booth v.

STYLE: The State of Texas

COA DISPOSITION: DISMISSED

OFFENSE: 1

COUNTY: Midland

TRIAL COURT: 385th District Court

DATE: 10/16/14 Publish: NO TCCASE#: CR42435

COA DISPOSITION: DISMISSED TRIAL COURT: 385th District Court

DATE: 10/16/14 Publish: NO TCCASE#: CR42435

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

IHM4 /*<*T/1

PD-1459-14

Marcus Dwight Booth v.

STYLE: The State of Texas

no se

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: OzhVIZQtS

JUDGE: Pm Qsa^*>

Petition

CCA#:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE: :

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
# 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 VIII

ECONOMIC AND MONETARY POLICY

ECONOMIC AND MONETARY POLICY

CHAPTER 1

ECONOMIC POLICY

Article 123

(ex Article 101 TEC)

(ex Article 101 TEC)

1.   Overdraft facilities or any other type of credit facility with the European Central Bank or with the central banks of the Member States (hereinafter referred to as ‘national central banks’) in favour of Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of Member States shall be prohibited, as shall the purchase directly from them by the European Central Bank or national central banks of debt instruments.

2.   Paragraph 1 shall not apply to publicly owned credit institutions which, in the context of the supply of reserves by central banks, shall be given the same treatment by national central banks and the European Central Bank as private credit institutions.

---
REPRODUCE LOCALLY. Include form number and date on all reproductions. FORM APPROVED - OMB NO. 0581-0191 

A knowingly false entry or false alteration of any entry on this certificate 

may result in a fine of not more than $11,000 or imprisonment for not 

more than five years or both (18 USC 1001). 

 

1. CERTIFIED TO ORGANIC STANDARDS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE 

 NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM 

 

NOP IMPORT CERTIFICATE

2. CITY AND STATE OF PRODUCT DESTINATION 3. DATE 4. IMPORT CERTIFICATE NUMBER 

8. CERTIFYING BODY ISSUING CERTIFICATE (NAME AND ADDRESS)

5. EXPORTED BY (NAME AND ADDRESS) 6. PRODUCT EXPORTED FROM 

9. TOTAL NET WEIGHT

7. RECIPIENT IN THE U.S. (NAME AND ADDRESS) 

10. TOTAL CONTAINERS 

13. SHIPPING IDENTIFICATION 14. FINAL HANDLER 12. HARMONIZED TARIFF 

CODE AS APPLICABLE 11. PRODUCT AS LABELED 

16. REMARKS AND ATTESTATIONS 

I CERTIFY that the agricultural products specified hereon have been certified under an organic certification program that is at least equivalent to the requirements of the 

Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA) (7 U.S.C. Sec. 6501 et seq.) and are therefore deemed by USDA to have been produced and handled in accordance with the 

OFPA and USDA organic regulations under the National Organic Program 7 CFR part 205.

17. SIGNATURE OF CERTIFYING BODY 18. DATE 

No financial liability shall attach to the United States Department of Agriculture or to any officer or representative of the Department with respect to this certificate. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital 

status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public 

assistance program (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape,etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue,S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid 

OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0581-0191. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 30 minutes 

per person, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of 

information. 

NOP 2110-1

15. CERTIFYING BODY OF 

FINAL HANDLER
# Cover

http://apps.ams.usda.gov/oecdvarietalsearch/mailto:stephen.malone@ams.usda.gov

# selfs

# crosses
1 Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA) Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 4:04 PM To: 'extrememedia@charter.net' Cc: Pappas, Rob (FAA); Pearson, Lakisha (FAA); Cooper, Thuy (FAA); Schandler, Andrea (FAA) Subject: Request for Additional Information

February 26, 2015

Mr. Richard Edmund Extreme Media Productions P.O. Box 170301 Spartanburg, South Carolina 29301

Dear Mr. Edmund:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2014-1034). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Please provide a copy or URL li nk of the aircraft manual.

 Your petition references the material listed below, however the material were not submitted for the record. Please provide a copy of the following referenced materials:

o Flight Operations and Procedures Manual

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Hea dquarters or electronically via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov . I f you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the in formation described above by March 12, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we w ill close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

Nia Daniels Program Analyst
EXHIBIT 10.23


December 17, 2001 


Mr. Terry Washburn

1701 W. Northwest Highway

Grapevine, TX 76051


Dear Mr. Washburn:


Per our discussions, the following sets forth our agreements, which supplement our letter agreement dated November 15, 2001.


Until Dec 17, 2003, you agree to serve as CEO of Premier for a base salary of $130,000 per year.


In consideration of the foregoing, Premier Concepts agrees to grant and issue to you a restricted stock award consisting of an aggregate of 400,000 shares of common stock. The shares will be issued to you immediately, however should you be terminated for cause the shares will be subject to pro-rata forfeiture on a proportional basis over the 24 month period beginning December 17, 2001 or in the event you voluntarily terminate your employment with the Company before Dec 17, 2003.without cause.  Further, the shares will be immediately released from any risk of forfeiture in the event the Company terminates your employment without cause prior to the expiration of the 24 month period. 


It is understood that if required by the Nasdaq Rules of Governance, the shares you receive pursuant to this agreement may not vest until proper shareholder approval is obtained.  If shareholder approval is required the company agrees to exercise reasonable efforts to obtain shareholder approval as soon as practicable.


If the foregoing accurately sets forth our agreement, please indicate your acceptance by signing below on the line provided and return an executed copy of this letter agreement to me at your earliest convenience.


Sincerely, 


______________________

John M. Gerber, Chairman

Approved and Accepted:


_____________________

Terry Washburn
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1


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

         This Certification is intended to accompany the Quarterly Report of
Finlay Enterprises, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended
August 2, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the
requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The undersigned hereby certifies 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: September 17, 2003

                                                  /s/ Arthur E. Reiner
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                  Arthur E. Reiner
                                                  Chairman, President and
                                                  Chief Executive Officer












A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to Finlay Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Finlay Enterprises,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7886

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

DALAINO LADELLE TURNER, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00130-LMB-1) 

Submitted: December 17, 2009 Decided: December 31, 2009 

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Dalaino Ladelle Turner, Appellant Pro Se. Neil H. MacBride, 

United States Attorney, John C. Lynch, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Dalaino Turner seeks to appeal the district court’s 

denial of his motion for appointment of counsel to file a motion 

for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). 

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 

U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral 

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order 

Turner seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an 

appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Miller v. 

Simmons, 814 F.2d 962 (4th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we dismiss 

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
#### 44th Hotel Associates, Doing Business as Royalton Hotel, Respondent, v Zurich Insurance Company et al., Appellants.

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about October 26, 1990, which *inter alia*granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and declared that defendants shall defend and indemnify plaintiff in the underlying action, *Serení v 44th Hotel Assocs.*(Sup Ct, NY County Index No. 9883) to the extent of any damages arising solely from defamation allegations, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted, and a declaration entered that defendants are not obligated to defend or indemnify plaintiff in the underlying *Serení*action.

Gia Serení, an employee of the plaintiff Royalton Hotel, commenced an action alleging that the hotel humiliated her by dismissing her in a condescending manner, in front of fellow employees, for the stated reasons that she was "not working out” and "not following orders.” Serení claimed that her dismissal was based upon her refusal to follow discriminatory practices of the hotel. Defendant refused to indemnify or defend the hotel, claiming no coverage under its insurance policy, and the hotel commenced this declaratory judgment action to determine the rights of the parties.

It is well settled that the duty of an insurer to defend is broader than the obligation to indemnify *(Seaboard Sur. Co. v Gillette Co.,*64 NY2d 304). It is equally well settled that a liability insurer’s duty to defend a suit against its insured is determined by comparing the allegations in the complaint with the terms of the policy. If such examination reveals that there is no reasonable possibility that the insured will be held liable for some act or omission covered by the policy, then no duty to defend is owed, and the insurer’s motion for summary judgment should be granted *(Meyers & Sons Corp. v Zurich Am. Ins. Group, 74*NY2d 298, 302).

We have compared the complaint with the terms of the policy and perceive no reasonable possibility that the hotel might be held liable for defamation or disparagement of a person’s services, which are included in the categories of claims for which the policy provides coverage. Accordingly the *476defendants’ motion for summary judgment should have been granted, and a declaration entered that defendants are not obligated to defend or indemnify the Royalton Hotel in the underlying *Sereni*action. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.
|   | (1) | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended October 29, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: January 14, 2011 |
|-------------------------|

|   | /s/   RAYMOND F. LANCY        |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|   | Raymond F. Lancy                             |
|   | Chief Financial Officer, Vice President      |
|   | Treasurer and Assistant Secretary            |
|   | (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00255-CV 

DREAM CREEK ENTERPRISES, 

INC. AND RAMEY J. KEETH

APPELLANTS

V.

BBL BUILDERS, LP APPELLEE 

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

FROM THE 415TH DISTRICT COURT OF PARKER COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. CV14-1224

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

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

On August 19, 2014, and September 3, 2014, we notified appellants in 

accordance with rule of appellate procedure 42.3(c) that we would dismiss this 

appeal unless the $195 filing fee was paid. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). 

Appellants have not paid the $195 filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 12.1(b).

 

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

Because appellants failed to comply with a requirement of the rules of 

appellate procedure and the Texas Supreme Court’s order of August 16, 2013,

2

we dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f).

Appellants shall pay all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: GABRIEL, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and DAUPHINOT, J.

DELIVERED: September 25, 2014

 

2See Supreme Court of Tex., Fees Charged in the Supreme Court, in Civil 

Cases in the Courts of Appeals, and Before the Judicial Panel on Multi-district 

Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 13-9127 (Aug. 16, 2013) (listing fees in courts of 

appeals).
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 24538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9961]


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

NEIGHBORHOOD REINVESTMENT CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice; Finance, Budget & Program; Committee 
Meeting of the Board of Directors

TIME AND DATE: 2 p.m., Wednesday, May 2, 2012.

PLACE: 1325 G Street NW., Suite 800, Boardroom, Washington, DC 20005.

STATUS: Open.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Erica Hall, Assistant Corporate 
Secretary, (202) 220-2376; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fd98959c9191bd938ad3928f9a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="34515c555858745a431a5b4653">[email protected]</span></a>.

AGENDA: 
I. Call to Order
II. Executive Session
III. Financial Report
IV. Grant Approvals
V. Lease Update
VI. FY '12 Milestone Report/Dashboard
VII. NFMC & EHLP
VIII. Program Updates
IX. Adjournment

Erica Hall,
Assistant Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-9961 Filed 4-20-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7570-02-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### *Th e Hon. Bruce M. Van Sickle, United States District Judg e

for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation. The Hon. Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judg e 1 

### for the District of South Dakota. _____________ No. 95-4149SD

_____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * On Appeal from the United v. * States District Court * for the District of * South Dakota. Michael Young, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 14, 1996 Filed: May 29, 1996

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, MAGILL, Circuit Judge, and VA N SICKLE, District Judge.

*

___________ RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.
Mi chael Young was convicted in the District Court of assaulting , 1 resisting, or impedin g a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111. He was s entenced to four years' probation, and a fine of $500.00 and a special assessment of $50.00 were imposed. Young appeals, arguing that th e government did not prove that the other person i nvolved in the altercation shown by the evidence at trial was a federal officer. We affirm.

### -2- The per son claimed by the United States, and found by the Distric t Court, to be a federal officer within the meanin g of § 111 was a man named John Miller. Mr. Miller was not an employee of the United States. He was a Ros ebud Sioux Tribe police officer. The Department of the Interior , how ever, had a contract with the tribe for the performance of law

enforcement functions. Such contracts are autho rized by 25 U.S.C. § 450h, known as Public Law 93-638. In addition, 25 U.S.C. § 2804(a) provides tha t the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Interior Department may enter into an agreement for the use of tribal personnel to enforce federal or tribal law
. And, under 25 U.S.C. § 2804(f), such persons, th ough not otherwise federal employees, are employees of the Department of th e Interior for purposes of § 111 of Title 18 when acting under authority granted by the Secretar y under 2 5 U.S.C. § 2804(a). See United States v. Schrader , 10 F.3d 134 5 (8th Cir. 1993). It is doubtless true, as Young argues, that not every person em ployed to carr y out a "Public Law 638 contract" fits this definition. But th e particular contract relevant to this case was in evidence as an exhibit at tri al, and it does authorize the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, through employee s hired for the purpose, to perform law-enforcement functions that woul d other wise be performed by BIA officers. It is undisputed that office r Miller was such a person. He was acting pursuant to authority given to th e tribe by its contract with the Department of the Interior. He is thus a federal officer within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 111 by the express words of 25 U.S.C. § 2804(f). Young also argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish an assault, and that cer tain exculpatory information was improperly withheld by the government before trial. We have considered these arguments an d hol d that they are without merit. They are not substantial enough t o deserve discussion.
Affirmed.

### -3- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Mr- ?r • C: £

Oi'l/'i

Hl-IS

My C.g.ia-e »'5 fctfor^kLlI^Cgll

1&ldj+k-e J^c^>y\d (on +ke s«t*e. tLcrj^ )pno(4>rJ

&{- 4lp Cortfl-chp frig I JTGnJcr'.flx A<r f/v-e tecoftcf

L^-l . I. -r ., J IJ / . V/".«, JJ„/_ JJ .rV'.^f on/u. Tc^^ -f^A^ ^y i/^>^ office fAg/ j-k^re are _(H volumesj thd ~£ rs&erf rJcr;-f)c*+'.ov\ )£ -/-Aqf /ivfnbff • • 7—j ——

X^ e'i\^-ef rcsef C^ofJ yvu f>(<>CL.[e -famish rv-C

^'-/-A 4-le, r&J-l- f^t f A-e +rc*Scr:ioh f-> my J-cCvhd

fr/af wly.C.murt'**' IQCtOZHf. &hct i*f*r**+;*h 4/^

f/Wr ^/;hg r.^a\\ak\\Ay . T*f +l)( IS hoi He pr^^rryj^c^ /°/W^/g fr.'f-ofM rt-e <rf -fie. c*>rr-ec1~ praCeSS .jT

-f-lgnK \/<}L<-f*r y<*sr -h\ we a*d fv^K £&nus£rJ ^e>

Wr- -t-inely r-eSf&hS-e. ,

Ta^^/T/^ #*/*

Glir*f_oC0t ZfJ^Jc^ZUP.

•**/-7?l2£<r

F'RSTCoSfSF

^ J 6 2015

,opHR/STOPHFR . n
[7342#

Par*"! r\(±or\ U/TjT

^jKcron ,T£. 7 7X^3

'HOUSTON

CHB1STOPHE* A

\CL££i

sOJI

fcSORflPH! HOUSTON TK 773?

14 APR 201S PM 5 1. jj

C<%rf o^/Wf^/j, ^W District

3d I han^'.o iff-eer

ZeW ^i|

"7 ?00220&£99 .||..,l,i|i||lini|..,ll.||ii|iri|i|ii|i||i|i>iii|i"i"l'l'i'