alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 13, 2015.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00928-CV

KIMBERLY MITCHELL, Appellant

V.

CHASE BANK, TARAD RASHAWN BESSARD, TANYA JOHNSON, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 113th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-44758

MEMORANDUM OPINION

According to information provided to this court, on November 14, 2014, 

appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s ruling that day denying a 

motion for default judgment. The appellate filing fee in the amount of $195.00 has 

not been paid. There is no indication in our record that appellant has claimed 

indigence. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. On December 3, 2014, this court notified 

appellant that the filing fee was past due and the appeal was subject to dismissal if 
2

the fee was not paid by December 15, 2014. No response was filed.

In addition, no clerk’s record has been filed. On December 18, 2014, the 

clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal informed the court 

appellant did not make arrangements to pay for the record. The district clerk’s 

office advised this court that appellant has not responded to any of its notices 

requesting payment and designation of the record. The notice to this court also 

stated that the trial court has not signed a final judgment or appealable order in the 

underlying case. 

On December 18, 2014, notification was transmitted to all parties of the 

court’s intention to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within 

fifteen days, appellant paid or made arrangements to pay for the record and 

provided this court with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b). Appellant 

has not paid the appellate filing fee, provided this court with proof of payment for 

the record, or filed any other response to this court’s notices. 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jamison, Busby, and Brown.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 59018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25306]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--VSI Alliance

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 13, 2000, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. Sec. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), VSI Alliance has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership status. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plantiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Alcatel 
Internetworking (PE), Inc., Spokane, WA; Artec Design Group, Tallinn, 
Estonia; Ben Cheese Electronic Design, Royston, United Kingdom; Chip 
Implementation Center, Hsin-Chu, Taiwan; Johan Cockx (individual 
member), Leuven, Belgium; Dr. Peter Green (individual member), 
Manchester, United Kingdom; Innoveda Ltd., Herzliyya, Israel; Lavetate 
Design Systems, Inc., Beaverton, OR; Malardalen University, Vasteras, 
Sweden; Pixelfusion Ltd., Bristol, Avon, United Kingdom; Siroyan 
Limited, Reading, England, United Kingdom; Socip Group of Korea, Seoul, 
Republic of Korea; Thomson Multimedia, Villingen-Schwennigen, Germany; 
and TriMedia Technologies, Sunnyvale, CA have been added as parties to 
this venture. Also, Actel Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA; Escalade, Santa 
Plano, TX; NetLogic Microsystems, Inc., Mountain View, CA; SandCraft, 
Inc., Santa Clara, CA; Scottish Enterprise, Livingston, Scotland, 
United Kingdom; and VAutomation, Inc., Nashua, NH have been dropped as 
parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and VSI Alliance intends to file 
additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On November 29, 1996, VSI Alliance filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on March 4, 1997 (62 FR 9812).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 18, 
2000. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on June 30, 2000 (65 FR 40694).

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-25306 Filed 10-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
<PAGE>

                            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 Kramont Realty Trust (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Carl E.
Kraus, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to the best of my
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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. of the Company.




                                              /s/ Carl E. Kraus
                                              ------------------------------
                                              Carl E. Kraus
                                              Chief Financial Officer
                                              Kramont Realty Trust
                                              August 10, 2002
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5036 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain knitted or crocheted fabrics 

containing elastomeric yarn. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 27, 2012 

Mr. DENT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain knitted or 

crocheted fabrics containing elastomeric yarn. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN KNITTED OR CROCHETED FABRICS 

4 CONTAINING ELASTOMERIC YARN. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5036 IH

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Knitted or crocheted fabrics of a width exceeding 

30 cm, containing by 

weight 5 percent or more 

of elastomeric yarn but not 

containing rubber thread 

(provided for in subheading 6004.10.00) ......... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2015 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5167 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5167

   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on magnesium aluminum 
  hydroxide carbonate (synthetic hydrotalcite) and magnesium aluminum 
 hydroxide carbonate (synthetic hydrotalcite) coated with stearic acid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

 Mrs. Maloney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To extend the temporary suspension of duty on magnesium aluminum 
  hydroxide carbonate (synthetic hydrotalcite) and magnesium aluminum 
 hydroxide carbonate (synthetic hydrotalcite) coated with stearic acid.

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

SECTION 1. MAGNESIUM ALUMINUM HYDROXIDE CARBONATE (SYNTHETIC 
              HYDROTALCITE) AND MAGNESIUM ALUMINUM HYDROXIDE CARBONATE 
              (SYNTHETIC HYDROTALCITE) COATED WITH STEARIC ACID.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.05.32 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to magnesium aluminum hydroxide 
carbonate (synthetic hydrotalcite) and magnesium aluminum hydroxide 
carbonate (synthetic hydrotalcite) coated with stearic acid) is amended 
by striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/
31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

HARMONY HAUS WESTLAKE, 

L.L.C., LING ZHOU, AND FENGLIN 

DU

Plaintiffs,

§

§

§

§

§

§

v.

PARKSTONE PROPERTY OWNERS 

ASSOCIATION, INC.

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-486-XR

Defendant. §

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED MOTION FOR TRO

On this day, after all legal prerequisites have been complied with, the Court having 

considered Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and 

Preliminary Injunction, Defendant’s Response, other documents on file, and the 

arguments of counsel, is of the opinion that Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order should be DENIED. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Temporary 

Restraining Order is denied.

SIGNED on this ___ day of __________ , 2020.

________________________

JUDGE PRESIDING
RE: EGU MACT -- Table of Costs and Benefits Higgins, Cortney

to:

Ron Evans 12/16/2011 06:49 PM

Cc: Bill Maxwell, RobertJ Wayland, Amy Cole Hide Details From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Cole/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

That looks right. This is what's currently in the system:

Working Version of Costs and Benefits Statement Units Category Primary Estimate Low Estimate High Estimate Year Dollars Disc Period Covered Notes Benefits $33.00 $82.00 2007 7% 2016 Annualized Monetized $millions/year $37.00 $91.00 2007 3% 2016 .
7% Annualized Quantified 3% . Qualitative

. Costs $9.20 2007 7% 2015 Annualized Monetized $millions/year $9.20 2007 3% 2015 .
7% Annualized Quantified 3% . Qualitative

. Transfers Not Estimated
7% Federal Annualized Monetized $millions/year 3% . From/To From: To:
7% Other Annualized Monetized $millions/year 3% . From/To From: To:
Effects State, Local, and/or Tribal Government

Not ApplicableSmall Business EPA cannot certify that this proposal will have no SISNOSE (significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities). Of the 83 affected small entities, 59 are projected to have costs greater than 1 percent of revenues, and 45 are projected to have costs greater than 3 percent of revenues.

Wages No estimates available regarding changes in wages.

Growth No estimate avaliable regarding changes in growth.

-----Original Message----- From: Ron Evans [mailto:Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 6:46 PM To: Higgins, Cortney Cc: Bill Maxwell; RobertJ Wayland; Coleman, Thomas (Volunteer) Subject: Re: EGU MACT -- Table of Costs and Benefits

Cortney, this version was updated on the 8th. I will review it concurrently with you but I was told it was up to date.

(See attached file: ROCIS_MATS_1216.xlsx)

From: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

To: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, "Coleman, Thomas (Volunteer)" <Thomas_M_Coleman@ceq.eop.gov>

Date: 12/16/2011 06:38

PM

Subject: EGU MACT -- Table of Costs and BenefitsI want to remind you to also provide the updated costs and benefits table/spreadsheet of data that needs to be uploaded into ROCIS to Amy Cole, the person who will upload the documents. Both costs and benefits have changed since the rule was submitted for review.
#### HUGHES v. STATE.

No. 23260.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 2, 1946.

Jim H. Letts, of Houston, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Appellant was convicted on a charge of burglary and assessed a penalty of two years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

The record is before us without bills of exception or a statement of facts. Nothing is presented for the consideration of this Court.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
|                                                                                                                  
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                                                              
|View History:                                                                                                     
|                                                                                                                  
|Calif--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                                  
|Calif--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Increases (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 1      | 0      | 4      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
|                                                                                
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                  
|View History: Annual                                                            
|View History: Annual                                                            
|View History:                                                                   
|                                                                                
|California--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                
|                                                                                
|California--San Joaquin Basin Onshore Shale Proved Reserves (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        | 855    | 777    | 756    | 15     | 12     | 41     | 62     | W      |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### In the Matter of John J. Scotto, an Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Second and Eleventh Judicial Districts, Petitioner.

Second Department,

May 20, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Robert H. Straus (Mark F. DeWan*of counsel), for petitioner.

*Frederick L. Sosinsky*for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The respondent was admitted to practice by this court on July 9, 1986. On June 28, 1990, in the Superior Court of *90California, County of Los Angeles, the respondent was convicted, upon his plea of *nolo contendere,*of possession of a forged instrument in violation of California Penal Code § 475, a felony. The respondent was sentenced on August 31, 1990, to a term of 16 months’ imprisonment.

We find that California Penal Code § 475 is essentially similar to New York Penal Law § 170.25, criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, a class D felony. Both California Penal Code § 475 and New York Penal Law § 170.25 require a knowing possession of a forged instrument and an intent to defraud.

Pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90 (4), the respondent ceased to be an attorney and counselor-at-law upon his conviction of a felony.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s motion is granted. The respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately.

Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Ordered that petitioner’s motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law §90, effective immediately, the respondent John J. Scotto is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent shall promptly comply with this court’s rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further,

Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law §90, effective immediately, the respondent John J. Scotto is commanded to desist and refrain (1) from practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law.
#### Otis Ray FITZGERALD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27039.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 26, 1954.

Martin & Shown, W. E. Martin, Houston, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is robbery, with a prior conviction for the same offense alleged to enhance the punishment; the punishment, life imprisonment.

It was shown that the appellant and his wife presented themselves at the Anderson County jail for the purpose of making an accident report; that, unknown to the appellant, his parole had been revoked, and the “process” for his arrest was in the hands of the officers; and that the appellant was placed temporarily in a cell on the ground floor. Prior to being so incarcerated, the appellant was not searched. When the officers attempted to move the appellant to an upstairs cell in the jail he drew a pistol on them and caused them to go into the cell which he had been occupying. Thereupon, the appellant forced the jailer, at pistol point, to deliver to him the keys to such cell, which he used to lock up the officers so as to prevent them from further interfering with his escape. Appellant did escape and carried the jail keys with him. It was further proven that the appellant had been convicted of robbery in McLen-nan County in 1947 and received a five-year sentence.

The appellant offered no defensive testimony.

It is upon these facts that this prosecution is based.

It is appellant’s contention that they do not constitute robbery. He relies upon Bailey v. State, 139 Tex.Cr.R. 260, 139 S.W.2d 599.

In the Bailey case the keys were not taken from the jail. Appellant testified that he obtained them during a fight with the jailer and intended to use them to lock the jailer in the cell, drop the keys out of his reach and escape from the jail.

But here the keys were actually taken from the jailer by means of an assault, were appropriated by appellant and taken away.

The court, in his charge, required the jury to find that appellant fraudulently *429took the keys with intent to appropriate them to his use and to deprive the jailer of their value. The evidence shows that he did so appropriate the keys and carried them away with him.

There was no testimony which required a charge on temporary use as applied to appropriation by the taker. -There is nothing to suggest that the keys were not intentionally carried away after the jailbreak or that appellant intended to do other than he did; that is, to take the keys at gun point, escape from jail and carry the keys away.

We think the facts stated distinguish this case from Bailey v. State, supra. If not, to that extent the Bailey case is overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.