alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-10877 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. SALVADOR CANCHOLA, JR., Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:09-CR-83-1

Before KING, CLEMENT, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent S alvador Canchola, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has f iled a brief in a c c ordance with Anders v. C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United S tates v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Canchola has filed a response. W e have reviewed c ounsel’s brief and th e relevant portions of the r e cord reflected therein, as well as Canchola’s response. We c oncur with counsel’s a ssessm e n t t h a t the appeal presents no nonfrivo l o u s issue for appellate review. Accordingly, c ounsel’s U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D June 17, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-10877 Document: 00512275545 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2013No. 12-10877

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused f rom further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS D ISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 12-10877 Document: 00512275545 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2013
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                           USN CORPORATION FORM 10-QSB
                       FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2005
  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Anthony Runnels, certify that

1.       I am the Chief Financial Officer of USN Corporation.
2.       Attached to this certification is Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
         June 30, 2005, a periodic report (the "periodic report") filed by the
         issuer with the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section
         13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the
         "Exchange Act"), which contains condensed consolidated financial
         statements.
3.       I hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
         pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
         o        The periodic report containing the condensed consolidated
                  financial statements fully complies with the requirements of
                  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and
         o        The information in the periodic report fairly presents, in all
                  material respects, the consolidated financial condition and
                  results of operations of the issuer for the periods presented.

August 25, 2005                                    /S/ Anthony Runnels
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   Anthony Runnels
                                                   Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by USN Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that
section. This certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 even if the document with which it is submitted to the Securities and
Exchange Commission is so incorporated by reference.


                                       26
SCHAFFER LAW OFFICES 

NOT A PARTNERSHIP 

1301 McKINNEY, SUITE 3100 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77010 

Randy Schaffer, P.C. (713) 951-9555 

noguilt@swbell.net FAX: (713) 951-9854 

Josh Schaffer, P.L.L.C. www.schafferfirm.com 

josh@joshschafferlaw.com 

Joel Hayter 

joelhayterlaw@gmail.com 

April 21, 2015 

Abel Acosta Via eFile 

Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals 

P.O. Box 12308 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Re: Ex Parte Joseph Lee Flores 

Case No. WR-82,975-01

Dear Mr. Acosta: 

To avoid confusion, I would like to make the Court aware that I had filed Applicant’s Proposed 

Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law with the Fort Bend County District Clerk’s Office on 

February 6, 2015 (C.R. 254). The trial court’s courtesy copy of that document was apparently 

refiled by the district clerk on March 17, 2015, and included in the Supplemental Clerk’s Record

(Suppl. C.R. 2). 

Also, my affidavit that addresses the State’s laches claim is not contained in the index of the 

Supplemental Clerk’s Record but may be found on page 44 (Suppl. C.R. 44-45). 

Thank you for your assistance. Please contact me if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Joel Hayter 

Joel Hayter 

JH/aw 

cc: Jason Bennyhoff 

WR-82,975-01

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 4/21/2015 11:00:19 AM

Accepted 4/21/2015 11:22:55 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK

 RECEIVED COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 4/21/2015 ABEL ACOSTA, CLERK
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-22-00230-CR

IN RE Jose Angel VACA, ET AL.

Original Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: April 27, 2022

PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION

On April 19, 2022, Relators filed a petition for a writ of prohibition. After considering the 

petition, the record, and the letter from the office of the Kinney County Attorney, this court 

concludes it is without jurisdiction over this petition. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a); Tex. 

Emp’rs’ Ins. Ass’n v. Kirby, 152 S.W.2d 1073 (Tex. 1941). Accordingly, the petition for writ of 

prohibition is dismissed. See In re De Los Santos, No. 14-16-00749-CV, 2016 WL 5342805, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 22, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); See also In re 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 10347CR, styled The State of Texas VS. Manuel Antonio Ramirez Reyes;

Cause No. 10354CR styled The State of Texas VS. Jose Angel Vaca; Cause No. 10356CR styled The State of Texas 

VS. Jesus Alfredo Solis Carrizales; Cause No. 10361CR styled The State of Texas VS. Jose Alfredo Crisofer Aguirre 

De Leon; Cause No. 10362CR styled The State of Texas VS. Roberto De Jesus Diaz Gonzales; Cause No. 10363CR 

styled The State of Texas VS. Isacc De Dios Diaz; Cause No. 10364CR styled The State of Texas VS. Jorge Favian 

Dominguez Ortiz; Cause No. 10365CR styled The State of Texas VS. Pedro De La Cruz Montejo; Cause No. 10366CR 

styled The State of Texas VS. Luis Miguel Ramirez Perez; and Cause No.10367CR styled The State of Texas VS. 

Gabriel Colorado Carrillo, pending in the County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Tully Shahan

presiding.
04-22-00230-CR

- 2 -

Drake, No. 05-21-00570-CV, 2021 WL 3073311, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 20, 2021, orig. 

proceeding) (mem. op.).

PER CURIAM

DO NOT PUBLISH
Development of Chemical Precipitation Purchased Equipment Costs:

Mixers

Purchased Equipment Costs are the sum of the following cost elements:

(1) Pump Costs

(2) Tank Costs

(3) Chemical Feed System Costs

(4) Mixer Costs

(5) Clarifier Costs

(6) Filter Press Costs

(7) Sand Filter Costs

This Excel workbook consists of the following worksheets:

Tanks and Mixers

Mixer Ratios

CBI NOTE: Data in the Tanks and Mixers tab largely comes from the supplemental cost documentation provided by

[Redacted] (Plant ID [Redacted]) which was marked CBI in the Survey.

Each cost component includes the cost of freight and associated ancillary equipment such as piping, valves, and 

controllers.

This Excel workbook supports EPA's derivation of cost element (4) using information provided in response to the Steam 

Electric Survey and vendor data.

The following worksheets support EPA's determination of mixer costs. Cost and tank size were related by mixer torque as 

recommended by a mixer vendor. Data from supplemental cost documentation provided by [Redacted] was used to create 

the relationship. The resulting ratios were used to develop mixer costs used in the Steam Electric Cost Model.

Provides tank and mixer details from the [Redacted] Plant.

Calculates the torque for each mixer and the mixer ratios that are used in the Steam Electric 

Cost Model.
ion provided by

 valves, and 

ponse to the Steam 

ed by mixer torque as 

ed] was used to create 

d in the Steam Electric 
[Plant-specific information has been redacted from this tab to prevent disclosure of material for which a claim of confidential 

information has been made.]
erial for which a claim of confidential business 
Calculations

Equalization Tank Reaction Tank 1 Reaction Tank 2 Sludge Tank Lime Slurry Tank

torque/vol 0.313871302 0.323206961 0.507450543 1.029377572 0.400161

torque 63025.35746 4201.690498 14005.63499 8440.896089 180.0724499

cost/torque 0.951997774 3.569991652 1.570796327 1.777062511 22.21328139

Tank Cost ($1,000) Tank Volume Mixer Torque Cost/Torque Cost/Volume

Equalization Tank 60 200800 63025 0.95 0.298804781

Reaction Tank 1 15 13000 4201 3.57 1.153846154

Reaction Tank 2 22 27600 14005 1.57 0.797101449

Sludge Tank 15 8200 8441 1.78 1.829268293

Lime Slurry Tank 4 450 180 22.21 8.888888889
Torque/Volume

0.313869522

0.323153846

0.507427536

1.029390244

0.4
Exhibit 24.5

POWER OF ATTORNEY

WHEREAS, CILCORP Inc., an Illinois corporation (herein referred to as the Company), is required to
file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, under the provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005; and

WHEREAS, each of the below undersigned is a director of the Company.

NOW, THEREFORE, each of the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Gary L. Rainwater and/or Warner L. Baxter and/or Steven R. Sullivan and/or Martin J. Lyons and/or Jerre E. Birdsong the true and lawful attorneys-in-fact of the
undersigned, for and in the name, place and stead of the undersigned, to affix the name of the undersigned to said Form 10-K and any amendments thereto, and, for the performance of the same acts, each with power to appoint in their place and stead
and as their substitute, one or more attorneys-in-fact for the undersigned, with full power of revocation; hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact may do by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto set their hands this 10th day of February 2006:



|                             |  |                       
|---------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|                             | 
|Daniel F. Cole, Director     |  | /s/ Daniel F. Cole    
|                             | 
|Richard A. Liddy, Director   |  | /s/ Richard A. Liddy  
|                             | 
|Steven R. Sullivan, Director |  | /s/ Steven R. Sullivan
|                             | 
|Thomas A. Voss, Director     |  | /s/ Thomas A. Voss    
|                             | 
|David A. Whiteley, Director  |  | /s/ David A. Whiteley 



|                  |  |   |  |    
|----------------- |  | - |  | ---
|                  |  |  
|STATE OF MISSOURI |  | ) |  |    
|                  |  |  
|                  |  | ) |  | SS.
|                  |  |  
|CITY OF ST. LOUIS |  | ) |  |    

On this 10th day of February, 2006, before me, the undersigned Notary Public in and for said State,
personally appeared the above-named directors of CILCORP Inc., known to me to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing power of attorney and acknowledged to me that they executed the same as their free act and deed for the purposes
therein stated.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal.



/s/ S. A. KitchensS. A. KitchensNotary Public  Notary SealSTATE OF MISSOURISt. Louis CountyMy Commission Expires: July 9, 2007
# TIEBEAITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN. T-s 78711 JOBN I, arA-- o-Al. June 27. 1975

The Honorable Cue D. Boykin Chairman, Texas Industrial Accident Board P. 0. Box 12757. Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Dear Mr. Boykin: Opinion No. H- 637 Re: Effective date of workmen’s compensation coverage for state employee*
You have requested our opinion concerning the date after which injuries sustained by a state employee may be compensated under article 8309g, V. T. C.S. Section 16of article 8309g provides: An employee is not entitled tobenefits under this article unless the accident causing his injury occurs at least 90 days after the effective date ofthis article. Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 88, p. 195, section 21at 201, provides in part: [Article 8309g] takes effect onthe first day that

money becomes available for its administration, pursuant to legislative appropriation . . . Money was appropriated byHouse Bill 169, Acts 1975, 64th~Leg., ch. 55, p. 119 (Vernon’s Texas Session Law Service No. 2), which went into effect onApril 18, 1975. Accordingly, injuries sustained on or after July 18, 1975, may be compensated under article 8309g. See Halbert v:San Saba Springs Land &Livwtock Association, 34 S.W. 639 (Tex. Sup. 1896). While $50.000 was transferred to the Attorney General’s Operating Fund from Workmen’s Compensation Fund No. 94 by Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 659, p. 1786 at 1920, effecti~ve September 1. 1974, in our view it is clear that this

p. 2805The Honorable Cue D. Boykin, page 2 (H-637)

transfer did not constitute the appropriation required by section 21. supra. The purpose ofthis transfer was to enable this office to better represent the Industrial Accident Board and to prepare for the initiation ofthe State employee’s workmen’s compensation program. Attorney General Opinion H-524 (1975). Section 3ofHouse Bill 169, supra, provides in part:

. . . there are presently nofunds for payment of valid claims
. . . In our opinion section 21, supra. requires an appropriation offunds to be available for the payment ofclaims. The transfer offunds tothis office’s Operating Punds did notmake such funds available for this purpose0 However, House Bill 169 didappropriate funds for this purpose and claims may be paid if they arise from injuries sustained 90 days after its April 18, 1975 effective date, that is, July 18, 1975. SUMMARY Injuries sustained by a state employee onand after July 18, 1975, may be compensated under article 8309g, V. T. C.S. Very truly your*, A
Attorney General ofTexas APPROVED:

LG DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee p. 2806
|  |  ROSS      MILLERSecretary      of State204      North Carson Street, Ste 1Carson      City, Nevada 89701-4299(775)      684 5708Website:      www.nvsos.gov  |
|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|         Certificate      of Withdrawal ofCertificate      of Designation(PURSUANT      TO NRS 78.1955(6))  |   | Filed      in the office of/s/ Ross      MillerRoss MillerSecretary of StateState of Nevada | Document      Number20090173156-24Filing Date and      Time02/24/2009      11:00 AMEntity      NumberC2323-1968 |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| USE      BLACK INK ONLY - DO NOT HIGHLIGHT | ABOVE      SPACE IS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY |
|--------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|

|  Centex      Corporation  |
|-------------------------------------|

|  Resolutions Authorizing Withdrawal of Certificate of      Designation, Preference and Rights of Junior Participating Preferred      Stock, Series D, which certificate was filed in the office of the Nevada      Secretary of State on October 7, 1996. [See attached resolutions.]     |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3.      No shares of the class or series of stock being withdrawn are      outstanding. |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| This      form must be accompanied by appropriate fees. | Nevada      Secretary of State NRS Withdrawal Designation        Revised:      7-1-08 |
|---------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed 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 quarterly report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this quarterly report 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 that occurred during the registrants first fiscal quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial 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 in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  /s/ Stephen L. ClantonStephen L. ClantonChief Financial Officer
27294

#### State v. Plichta

Affirmed
Re: D-1-DC-13-300082, State vs. Juan Leal, Jr. 

Dear Mr. Kyle, 

The reporter’s record in this case was due to be filed in the 3rd COA on May 11, 2015. I have 

actually completed the record with the exception of a few details, but I’m in a trial currently, so I 

would respectfully ask for a 30-day extension to allow me time to complete the reporter’s record 

in this case; however, I have full confidence that I can complete it as soon as this trial, which is 

expected to be Wednesday 20th. 

Sincerely, 

Angela Chambers 

299th District Court
#### NATIONAL ZINC COMPANY, INC., and the State Insurance Fund, Petitioners, v. John SPENCER, and the State Industrial Court, Respondents.

No. 49237.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Nov. 23, 1976.

*907Sam Hill, Sheryl S. Sullivan, Oklahoma City, for petitioners.

John B. Estes, of Stipe, Gossett, Stipe & Harper, Oklahoma City, for respondents.

WILLIAMS, Chief Justice.

This is an original proceeding to review an order of the Industrial Court, affirmed en banc, awarding claimant compensation for 55 per cent permanent partial disability to the body as a whole, suffered because of long exposure to inhalation of smoke, fumes, dust and gases during his twenty-six years employment with petitioner. The long period of exposure irritated, aggravated and accelerated claimant’s condition of pulmonary fibrosis and emphysema.

The sole error claimed by petitioner is that award is contrary to evidence and law and not sustained by competent evidence because court failed to appoint an independent medical examiner to examine claimant.

Claimant submitted the report and deposition of Dr. B., who was of the opinion claimant was 80 per cent permanently disabled. Petitioner submitted report and testimony of Dr. M., who found claimant had no disability for ordinary manual labor. Petitioner submits this discrepancy requires the court to appoint an independent medical examiner and his refusal to do so was an abuse of discretion. Petitioner cites no authority for this contention.

We find record supports existence of competent evidence to support finding claimant sustained a 55 per cent disability during course of covered employment. Where medical evidence is conflicting as to extent of disability sustained by claimant, amount of disability is a question of fact for the Industrial Court and will not be disturbed in a proceeding for review where reasonably supported by medical evidence.1

*908We find court did not abuse its discretion in not appointing an independent medical examiner.

AWARD SUSTAINED.

DAVISON, BERRY, LAVENDER and SIMMS, JJ., concur.

HODGES, V. C. J., and IRWIN, BARNES and DOOLIN, JJ., dissent.

1

. *Dolese Bros. Co. v. McBride,*268 P.2d 268 (Okl.1954).
# C_2016203EN.01000801.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 203/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 203/8

---

Article 8

1.   After consulting the Scientific and Technical Committee, the Commission shall establish a Joint Nuclear Research Centre.

This Centre shall ensure that the research programmes and other tasks assigned to it by the Commission are carried out.

It shall also ensure that a uniform nuclear terminology and a standard system of measurements are established.

It shall set up a central bureau for nuclear measurements.

2.   The activities of the Centre may, for geographical or functional reasons, be carried out in separate establishments.

---