alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60167-60168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25937]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Export Administration


Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory 
Committee; Notice of Open Meeting

    The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory 
Committee will meet on October 25, 2000, 9 a.m., at the Herbert C. 
Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Pennsylvania & 
Constitution Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with 
respect to technical question that affect the level of export controls 
applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.

Agenda

    1. Opening remarks by the Chairman.
    2. Consultation with Committee on renewal of charter.
    3. Review of pending regulatory revisions.
    4. Update on missile technology issues.
    5. Update on Wassenaar Arrangement negotiations.
    6. Presentation of papers or comments by the public.
    7. Review of status of actions items from previous meeting.
    8. Member assignments for Wassenaar Arrangement proposals.
    The meeting will be open to the public and a limited number of 
seats

[[Page 60168]]

will be available. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent time 
permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the 
Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or 
after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public 
presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests 
that you forward your public presentation materials two weeks prior to 
the meeting to the following address: Ms. Lee Ann Carpenter, OSIES/EA/
BXA Ms: 3876, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th & Constitution Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20230.
    For more information or copies of the minutes, please call Lee Ann 
Carpenter on (202) 482-2583.

    Dated: October 4, 2000.
Lee Ann Carpenter,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-25937 Filed 10-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-M
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5, the Court has determ ined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 11, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 06-50789

_____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee v. MIGUEL ROCHA-BELMONTES

Defendant - Appellant

--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, El Paso

--------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: * IT IS ORDERED that Appellee’s unopposed motion to vacate sentence of the district court is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellee’s unopposed motion to remand case for resentencing is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERE D that Appellee’s unopposed alternative motion to extend time to file Appellee’s brief 30 days from theCourt’s denial of Appellee’s motion to vacate and remand is

DISMISSED AS MOOT.
|                                                                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                                  
|View History:                                                                                         
|                                                                                                      
|West Virginia Nonassociated Natural Gas, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs, Wet (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                      
|                                                                                                      
|West Virginia Nonassociated Natural Gas, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs, Wet (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 198    | 375    | 439    | 427   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 310    | 202    | 353    | 295    | 510    | 586    | 923    | 1,010  | 920    | 815   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 924    | 1,575  | 2,529  | 6,546  | 17,219 | 7,801  | 7,744  | 15,651 | 14,407 | 21,473
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 13,919 | 21,025 |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2009 

d1019 

Order 

 

October 26, 2009 

138488(55) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138488 

 COA: 280984 

Jackson CC: 07-003583-FC 

DAVID DEWAYNE ALDRIDGE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s June 23, 2009 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
#### SPENCER v. STATE.

No. 25888.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 25, 1952.

No attorney for appellant.

Raymond E. Magee, County Atty., Galveston, and George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, 'Commissioner.

This is a conviction for possessing marijuana; the punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

Two cigarettes of marijuana were found in appellant’s possession.

It is contended that such evidence was obtained as a result of the illegal arrest and unauthorized search of appellant’s person.

To preserve that question for determination by this court, appellant relies, upon his motion to suppress the evidence so obtained. There is no bill of exception showing that appellant objected to the introduction before the jury of the testimony showing the finding of the marijuana. ■

We have repeatedly held that a motion to suppress evidence because it was illegally obtained or in violation of law is not sufficient to preserve the question for review, and that an objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence at the time it is offered. Anderson v. State, 146 Tex.Cr.R. 222, 172 S.W.2d *200310; Bailey v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 248 S.W.2d 144.

The admissibility of the evidence as to the finding of the marijuana is therefore not before us for consideration.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
USPSTRACKNG# 

I 

JF:ca Paid 

I N III I llIll H I 9590 9402 5679 9346 183 01 '/ 

United States Sender: Please print your namedcttess, and ZlP44A this box' 

PtaJ..Sejyice CEj/r V U Clerk, U S. District Court * 

655 E Ceser E Chavez Blvd Rm G65 

MAY 11 200 

San Antonio, Texas 78206 

WTRNRIc CLERK USM - COURT 

-1 Co iplete items 1,2, and 3. A. Signature 

Pri t your name and address on the reverse x 

0 Agent 

so hat we can return the card to you. 0 AddRS5 

Afl ch this card to the back of the mailpiece, B. Received by (Printed Name) IC. Date of DeUvery 

or n the front if space permits. 

I 1. Ad IaAddressMtr D. sde!ivery" 

If YES, enr deliv IN] o Th Honorable Ken Paxton I 

ILCENTER' 

Te :as Attorney General 

30 W. 15th Street 

AL stin, Texas 78701 OFFICE OF THE I NY craJJL I Service Type U lf lIáss® 

ii ult Signature 0 RegIstered MSIITM iiiii lII 111111 II 1111111 IIIIIIIIIIU III uif Signature Restricted Dellvety 0 gstered Mall Restricted 1590 9402 5679 9346 1883 01 

0 Certified Mail® 

0 CertifIed Mail Restricted Delivery )3letum Receipt for ______ 2. Mile ______________________________________ Number (rranfer fmm eMt kthII o Collect on Delivery MerchandIse 0 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery 0 Signature ConfimlatloniM ured Mail 0 Signature Confirmation 

019 2280 0002 0825 3784 

I ureMailRestioelivery RestrictedDefivery ver PSFo n3811,JuIy2O15Pslmso-o2-000-9os Domestic Return Receip 

Case 5:20-cv-00438-FB Document 29 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              35
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  134,997
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     19,774
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               164,758
<PP&E>                                       2,718,994
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,550,626
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,610,374
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           84,665
<BONDS>                                        500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                     796,366
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,610,374
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               195,890
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   38,034
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,945
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,882
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 76,697
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,747
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             46,950
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    46,950
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00758-CV

Ray BASALDUA, Individually and d/b/a Basaldua Roofing,

Appellant

v.

Harold HADDEN and Sandra Hadden,

Appellees

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Frio County, Texas

Trial Court No. 06-09-00303CVF

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 30, 2009

DISMISSED

Ray Basaldua, Individually and d/b/a Basaldua Roofing appeals the trial court’s judgment

signed July 15, 2008. Appellant’s brief on the merits was originally due June 10, 2009. On June 26,

2009, we granted appellant an extension until August 10, 2009, to file the brief. In our order

granting the extension, we noted that no further extensions would be granted. Neither the brief nor

a motion for extension of time was filed. On August 24, 2009, we ordered appellant to file, not later
04-08-00758-CV

-2-

than ten days from the date of the order, a written response reasonably explaining his failure to

timely file the brief. Appellant has not filed a brief or the written response ordered by the court.

We therefore order this appeal dismissed for want of prosecution. We further order that

appellees, Harold Hadden and Sandra Hadden, recover their costs in this appeal from appellant.

PER CURIAM
#### James Amato et al., Respondents, *v.*Louis Werier, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

May 2, 1957.

*Leslie Kirsch*for appellant.

*Adolphe C. Orlando*for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

The deed by which the tenant herein conveyed the property contains an ambiguity as to the nature of the tenancy under which he was to remain in possession of his apartment. The trial court should have admitted oral testimony to clear up this ambiguity.

The final order should be unanimously reversed upon the law and facts and new trial granted, with $30 costs to the tenant to abide the event.

Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ., concur.

Final order reversed, etc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., 

DELL INC., AND EMC 

CORPORATION,

Defendants.

 Civil Action No.: 6:20-cv-00473-ADA-DTG

 Civil Action No.: 6:20-cv-00476-ADA-DTG

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORDER STAYING CASE

Before the Court is Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and 

Development’s (“Plaintiff”) Opposed Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice or in the Alternative 

to Stay District Court Proceedings Pending Resolution of Ex Parte Reexamination (“Motion”). 

Plaintiff filed the Motion on March 20, 2023 (D.I. 255)1, Defendants Dell Technologies Inc., Dell 

Inc., and EMC Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) filed their Response to the Motion on 

March 22, 2023 (D.I. 256), and Plaintiff filed its Reply in support of the Motion on March 29, 

2023 (D.I. 257). After careful consideration of the briefing and arguments, the Court ORDERS 

the following:

1. The parties shall complete expert discovery by May 19, 2023. The parties shall 

notify the Court once expert discovery is complete.

2. The Court will stay and administratively close the above-captioned actions 

1 All references to “D.I. ___” are to Case No. 6:20-cv-00473-ADA-DTG unless otherwise noted.

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA-DTG Document 265 Filed 04/14/23 Page 1 of 2
immediately upon the completion of expert discovery. Plaintiff anticipates seeking to lift the stay 

of the above-captioned actions once final resolution on Defendants’ request for ex parte 

reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 7,565,435, including any appeals, is reached.

3. While the above-captioned actions are stayed and administratively closed, the 

parties shall (1) notify the Court of any significant event, and (2) provide status updates for the 

Court every six months.

Signed this 14th day of April 2023.

____________________________________

HON. DEREK T. GILLILAND

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00473-ADA-DTG Document 265 Filed 04/14/23 Page 2 of 2
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT 

1800 Washington Boulevard -Baltimore MD 21230 

MDE 410-537 -3000 - 1-800-633-6101 

Martin O'Malley Shari T. Wilson 

Governor Secretary 

Anthony G. Brown Robert M. Summers, Ph.D . 

Lieutenant Governor Deputy Secretary 

April 22, 2009 

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin 

Regional Administrator (3RAOO) 

US Environmental Protection Agency 

Region III 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia PA 19103-2029 

Dear Mr. Garvin: 

The purpose of this letter is to submit the enclosed State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision 

# 10-05 concerning adoption of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG) for flat wood paneling coatings. This SIP Revision includes amendments to 

Regulation .32 and new Regulation .33 under COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds 

from Specific Processes. 

The Notice of Proposed Action for this SIP Revision was published in the Maryland Register on 

December 18, 2009. A public hearing was held on January 21 , 2010. The action was adopted 

on March 21 , 2010. The Notice of Final Action was published on April 9, 2010 and the 

amendments and new regulation became effective on April 19, 2010. All administrative 

procedures were properly followed throughout the adoption process. 

If you have any questions concerning this SIP submittal, please feel free to call me at (410) 537­

3084 or Mr. George (Tad) S. Aburn, Jr. , Director of the Air and Radiation Management 

Administration, at (410) 537-3255. 

Shari T. Wilson 

Secretary 

STW:dhr 

Enclosures 

Recycled Paper www.mde.Sl3te.md LIS TTY Users 1-800-735-2258 

Via Maryland Relay Service
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 1 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 2 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 3 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 4 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 5 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 6 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 7 of 8
Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 56-1 Filed 11/09/20 Page 8 of 8
#### ALEXANDER v. STATE.

No. 25328.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 30, 1951.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Upon his plea of “guilty”, appellant was found guilty of theft of two head of cattle and sentenced to a term of three years in the penitentiary.

The record is brought forward without a statement of facts or bill of exception. All the proceedings appear regular. No question is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. ■ ■
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a BRAZOS 

LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC., 

AND EMC CORPORATION,

Defendants.

Case No. 6:20-cv-00482-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

[PROPOSED] ORDER

The Court, having reviewed and considered Defendant’s Motion for Intra-District Transfer 

of Venue to the Austin Division, does hereby ORDER that the above-captioned action be 

TRANSFERRED to the Austin Division but remain on the docket of United States District Judge 

Alan D Albright. 

SIGNED this ________ day of ____________________, 2020

 HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00482-ADA Document 44-22 Filed 11/04/20 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

TYANKARAN THEIVENDRARAJAH,
Petitioner,

v. SA-20-CA-370-XR
CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security;
WILLIAM P. BARR, U.S. Attorney
General; MATTHEW ALBENCE, Acting
Director of ICE; KENN CUCCINELLI
Acting Director of USCIS; MICHAEL
PITTS, Field Office Director of Detention
and Removal ICE; and RAY CASTRO,
Warden, South Texas Detention Facility:

DPODNMNNMNM MAND DMD mm

Respondents.

ORDER RETURNING CASE TO THE DISTRICT COURT

Before the Court is the status of the above case, in which Petitioner sought release from
immigration custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Docket Entry 1.) The District Court
referred this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for consideration of pretrial matters on
May 4, 2020. (Docket Entry 3.)

Respondents have submitted an Advisory to the Court indicating that Petitioner was
removed on or about September 17, 2020. (Docket Entry 35.) In light of Petitioner’s release,
there appears to be no further pretrial matters for the Magistrate Judge to act upon. Accordingly,
it is ORDERED that the above-entitled and numbered cause is RETURNED to the District Court
for all purposes.

SIGNED on September 22, 2020.

L2G

Hep aA ad
Uyfited States Magistrate Eva
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-30360

Conference Calendar

 

WILLIE BRUINS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

BURL CAIN, Warden,

Louisiana State Penitentiary,

Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 97-CV-2311

- - - - - - - - - -

October 21, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Willie Bruins, #96904, appeals the district court’s

dismissal without prejudice of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for

failure to prosecute. This court must examine the issue of

subject-matter jurisdiction on its own motion, if necessary. 

Giannakos v. M/V BRAVO TRADER, 762 F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir.

1985). The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

requires that a prisoner seeking to file a second or successive 
No. 98-30360

-2-

§ 2254 petition obtain an order from this court authorizing the

district court to consider such a petition. See § 2244(3)(A). 

Bruins failed to obtain prior permission from this court to

file a successive § 2254 petition and the petition should have

been dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the dismissal of the petition is AFFIRMED for

failure of the requisite jurisdiction. See Hanchey v. Energas

Co., 925 F.2d 96, 97 (5th Cir. 1990).

AFFIRMED.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 Certification by the Principal Executive Officer of
Enesco Group, Inc.
Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Exchange Act and
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) I, Cynthia Passmore-McLaughlin, am President and Chief Executive Officer of Enesco Group, Inc.
(the Company). This certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act) and 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Companys Quarterly Report
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the Report). I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge: (a) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78 m(a) or 78o(d)); and (b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company. May 10, 2005
    
    /s/ Cynthia Passmore-McLaughlinCynthia Passmore-McLaughlinPresident and Chief ExecutiveOfficer
 38