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

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-94,792-04

EX PARTE ROBERT NICHOLAS SIMMONS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 17FC-3271-H(1) IN THE 347TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM NUECES COUNTY

Per curiam. SLAUGHTER, J., filed a concurring opinion. KELLER, P.J., dissented. 

O P I N I O N

Applicant was convicted of intoxication manslaughter and sentenced to fifteen years’

imprisonment. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Simmons v. State, 672

S.W.3d 821 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2023). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas

corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant contends that appellate counsel failed to advise him of his right to file a pro se

petition for discretionary review. Based on the record, we have determined that appellate counsel’s

performance was deficient and that Applicant would have timely filed a petition for discretionary

review but for counsel’s deficient performance.
2

Relief is granted. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Ex parte Crow,

180 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Applicant may file an out-of-time petition for

discretionary review of the judgment of the Thirteenth Court of Appeals in cause number 13-22-

00322-CR. Should Applicant decide to file a petition for discretionary review, he must file it with

this Court within thirty days from the date of this Court’s mandate.

Copies ofthis opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: SEPTEMBER 4, 2024

Do not publish
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 249 (Friday, December 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 90217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-28741]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 29, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 22, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Contract 153 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at 
www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-141, CP2024-147.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-28741 Filed 12-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 8 (Thursday, January 11, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 1944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00544]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[USITC SE-24-002]


Sunshine Act Meetings

Agency Holding the Meeting: United States International Trade 
Commission.

TIME AND DATE: January 19, 2024 at 9:30 a.m.

PLACE: Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: 
(202) 205-2000.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    1. Agendas for future meetings: none.
    2. Minutes.
    3. Ratification List.
    4. Commission vote on Inv. Nos. 701-TA-576-577 and 731-TA-1362-1367 
(Review) (Cold-Drawn Mechanical Tubing (CDMT) from China, Germany, 
India, Italy, South Korea, and Switzerland). The Commission currently 
is scheduled to complete and file its determinations and views of the 
Commission on February 9, 2024.
    5. Outstanding action jackets: none.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory 
Hearings and Information Officer, 202-205-2000.
    The Commission is holding the meeting under the Government in the 
Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In accordance with Commission policy, 
subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, 
may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: January 9, 2024.
Sharon Bellamy,
Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-00544 Filed 1-9-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
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

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of Y-Tel  International,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, John
Conroy, acting President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

     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 result of operations of
         the Company.

Dated: May 31, 2006


/s/ John Conroy
-----------------------------------
John Conroy, President, CEO and CFO

































                                    32.1-1
<PAGE>   1
                                                                

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS                              EXHIBIT 23.1



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our report included in this Form 10-K/A No.2 into the Company's previously
filed Post-Effective Amendment No. 3 to the S-8 Registration Statement File No.
33-43841 and the S-8 Registration Statement File No.  33-27213.





ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


St. Louis, Missouri
January 8, 1996
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 129 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                    IN HONOR OF THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 21, 2012

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the City of 
Lakewood, Ohio. Also known as ``The City of Beautiful Homes,'' Lakewood 
is an exemplary community within Northeast Ohio.
  Lakewood is one of Ohio's most diverse and culturally rich cities. It 
is home to several art galleries, Winchester Music Hall and the Beck 
Center of the Arts. Additionally, both Malley's Chocolates and 
Aladdin's Eatery are based out of Lakewood, Ohio.
  Lakewood has been named as one of the best cities to live in by This 
Old House Magazine and Scene Magazine. It was listed among the best 
suburbs in the U.S. by Travel & Leisure Magazine. It was named the 
``Best Place to Raise Your Kids 2010'' by Business Week.
  Today, the City of Lakewood is home to more than 52,000 residents who 
are led by Mayor Mike Summers. Mayor Summers, who had previously served 
as a Councilman, has been serving as mayor since 2010. There are seven 
members on the City Council: Tom Bullock, David Anderson, Shawn Juris, 
Mary Louise Madigan, Brian Powers, Monique Smith and Ryan Nowlin.
  Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring the City of 
Lakewood and all of its residents.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4785 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4785

  To prohibit the consolidated audit trail from accepting personally 
            identifying information, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 12, 2018

 Mr. Huizenga (for himself and Mr. Hultgren) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To prohibit the consolidated audit trail from accepting personally 
            identifying information, and for other purposes.

    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 ``American Customer Information 
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. NO ACCEPTANCE OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING INFORMATION.

    (a) In General.--The consolidated audit trail may not accept 
personally identifying information.
    (b) Exception for Large Traders.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to 
information accepted by the consolidated audit trail in connection with 
large traders.
    (c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
            (1) Consolidated audit trail.--The term ``consolidated 
        audit trail'' means the consolidated audit trail created by the 
        national market system plan approved pursuant to section 
        242.613 and section 242.608 of title 17, Code of Federal 
        Regulations (or any successor regulation).
            (2) Large trader.--The term ``large trader'' has the 
        meaning given that term under section 13(h)(8) of the 
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(h)(8)).
            (3) Personally identifying information.--The term 
        ``personally identifying information'' includes--
                    (A) Social Security numbers;
                    (B) individual taxpayer identification numbers;
                    (C) other customer identifying information, when 
                taken alone or together, sufficient to identify an 
                individual, such as names, addresses, dates of birth, 
                account numbers; and
                    (D) any other information the Securities and 
                Exchange Commission determines could be defined as 
                personally identifying information.
                                 <all>
```
September 14 , 2016

Exemption No. 11062C

Reg ulatory Docket No. FAA

- 2014

- 0352

Mr. Daniel Tartre

Astraeus Aerial Cinema Systems

16255 Ventura Blvd., Suite 625

Encino, CA 91436

Dear Mr. Tartre :

This letter is to inform you that we have g ranted your petition to extend Exemption No.

11062B . It explains the basis for our decision , desc ribes i ts effect, and lists the conditions and

limitations.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated August 15 , 2016 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

on behalf of Astraeus Aerial Cinema Systems (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an

extension to your current exemption. That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4)

and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a),

91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal

Regulations (14 CFR) allows the petitioner to operate a UAS to perform closed

- set motion

picture and television filming 1

.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions a nd reasons

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register beca use the requested extension of the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the petitioner.

1 You also requested to increase the maximum payload of the V.3CS multirotor UAS to 80 (eighty) pounds, and

to allow UAS operations using augmented visual line of sight. At this time, the FAA is unable to authorize the

increased payload for the V.3CS multirotor UAS and UAS operations using augmented visual line of sight until a

further assessment is completed. Wh en the FAA completes its review, we will proceed accordingly and no

further action will be required by the petitioner.2

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 11062

,

rem ains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the

authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40113 and 44701, delegated to me by the

Administrator, the operator is granted an extension to its exemption.

The opera tor shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitations

All conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 11062 remain in effect. The

termination date has been updated

.

Failure to comply with any of the conditio ns and limitations of this grant of exemption will be

grounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

T his exemption terminates on September 30, 2017 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John S. Duncan

Director, Flight Standards Service
# Iris Oifigiúil L NaN/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2571
  doi:10.3000/17252571.L_2010.108.gle |
| --- | --- |
| Iris Oifigiúil
  an Aontais Eorpaigh | L NaN |
| | |
| An t-eagrán Gaeilge | Reachtaíocht | 5329 Aibreán 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2571

doi:10.3000/17252571.L_2010.108.gle

Iris Oifigiúil

an Aontais Eorpaigh

L NaN

An t-eagrán Gaeilge

Reachtaíocht

5329 Aibreán 2010

---

| Clár | | Ceartúchán | Leathanach |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | * | Ceartúchán ar Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 66/2010 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 25 Samhain 2009 maidir le hÉicilipéad an AE
  (IO L 27, 30.1.2010) | 1 |
| | * | Ceartúchán ar Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 67/2010 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 30 Samhain 2009 lena leagtar síos rialacha ginearálta maidir le cabhair airgeadais Chomhphobail a dheonú i réimse na ngréasán tras-Eorpach
  (IO L 27, 30.1.2010) | 1 |

Clár

Ceartúchán

Leathanach

*

Ceartúchán ar Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 66/2010 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 25 Samhain 2009 maidir le hÉicilipéad an AE
  (IO L 27, 30.1.2010)

(IO L 27, 30.1.2010)

1

*

Ceartúchán ar Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 67/2010 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 30 Samhain 2009 lena leagtar síos rialacha ginearálta maidir le cabhair airgeadais Chomhphobail a dheonú i réimse na ngréasán tras-Eorpach
  (IO L 27, 30.1.2010)

(IO L 27, 30.1.2010)

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Faoin tagairt L 108 a foilsíodh ábhar an eagráin seo i dteangacha oifigiúla an Aontais Eorpaigh |

---

(1)   Faoin tagairt L 108 a foilsíodh ábhar an eagráin seo i dteangacha oifigiúla an Aontais Eorpaigh

1

| GA | |
| --- | --- |

GA

---

Ceartúchán

| 29.4.2010 | GA | Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh | L NaN/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2010

GA

Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh

L NaN/1

---

Ceartúchán ar Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 66/2010 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 25 Samhain 2009 maidir le hÉicilipéad an AE

(
  Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh L 27 an 30 Eanáir 2010
  )

(Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh L Eagrán speisialta Gaeilge)

Leathanach 8, Airteagal 20, an dáta:

in ionad:

‘Arna dhéanamh in Strasbourg, 25 Samhain 2009’

léitear:

léitear:

‘Arna dhéanamh in Strasbourg, an 25 Samhain 2009.’

---

| 29.4.2010 | GA | Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh | L NaN/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2010

GA

Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh

L NaN/1

---

Ceartúchán ar Rialachán (CE) Uimh. 67/2010 ó Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón gComhairle an 30 Samhain 2009 lena leagtar síos rialacha ginearálta maidir le cabhair airgeadais Chomhphobail a dheonú i réimse na ngréasán tras-Eorpach

(
  Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh L 27 an 30 Eanáir 2010
  )

(Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh L Eagrán speisialta Gaeilge)

Leathanach 27, Airteagal 22, an data:

in ionad:

‘Arna dhéanamh sa Bhrúiséil,’

léitear:

léitear:

‘Arna dhéanamh sa Bhrúiséil, an 30 Samhain 2009.’

Leathanach 27, Airteagal 22, an síniú:

in ionad:

in ionad:

‘J BUSEK’

léitear:

léitear:

‘J. BUZEK’

---
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-60310 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus ANTOINE MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:94-CR-125
- - - - - - - - - - March 29, 1996 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appellant appeals his jury conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. § 846, and use of a communication facility in furtherance of a drug crime, 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), complaining of insufficiency of the evidence and attacking the constitutionality of the sentencing guidelines disparate treatment of cocaine base and cocaine powder. Our review of the record and the arguments and authorities convinceNo. 95-60310 -2- us that no reversibile error was committed. The evidence was not

insufficient. See United States v. Gallo , 927 F.2d 815, 820-21 (5th Cir. 1991). Appellant's challenges to the constitutionality of the guidelines are without merit. See United States v. Fisher , 22 F.3d 574, 579-80 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 529 (1994) (Eighth Amendment challenge); United States v. Watson , 953 F.2d 895, 897-98 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 504 U.S. 928 (1992) (due process and equal protection challenges). Appellant's motion to strike portions of the Government's brief is DENIED. AFFIRMED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20479

Conference Calendar

 

CHARLES WILSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH L. NASH, State Counsel for Offenders,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CV-1091

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

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles Wilson, Texas prisoner #521150, moves for

appointment of counsel and in forma pauperis (IFP) status on

appeal. Wilson’s IFP motion is a challenge to the district

court’s decision that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 201 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Wilson argues that the district court erred in dismissing as

frivolous his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Kenneth Nash,

Wilson’s former defense attorney, and a staff attorney for the
No. 04-20479

-2-

State Counsel of Offenders. A public defender is not a state

actor for purposes of § 1983 liability “when performing a

lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a

criminal proceeding.” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325

(1981). Moreover, Wilson’s claim is barred because he is seeking

to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional sentence

that has not been reversed on appeal or in a postconviction

proceeding. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).

Wilson has not shown that the district court erred in

certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. See

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Accordingly, Wilson’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED,

and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at

202 n. 24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Wilson’s motion for appointment of

counsel is DENIED. 

The district court’s dismissal of Wilson’s civil rights

complaint counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g),

and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous also counts as a

strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.

Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Wilson is WARNED

that if he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in

any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or

detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of

serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
No. 04-20479

-3-
32.2SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER





CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Commonwealth Income & Growth Fund
IV, (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Kimberly A. Springsteen-Abbott, Chief Financial Officer of the general
partner of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best
of  my knowledge:




(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 result of operations of the
Company.







/s/ Kimberly A.
      Springsteen-AbbottKimberly
      A. Springsteen-AbbottChief
      Financial OfficerAugust
      14, 2008
#### William Floyd NETTLE, Appellant, v. SOUTHWEST TELEPHONE COMPANY, et al.

No. 11585.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Sept. 13, 1939.

C. T. Carpenter, of Marked Tree, Ark., for appellant.

Reid & Evrard, of Blytheville, Ark., for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal, 26 F.Supp. 12, docketed and dismissed, on motion of appellee and consent of appellant.