alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 203 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62646]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26893]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[CC Docket No. 94-54; FCC 00-251]


Interconnection and Resale Obligations Pertaining to Commercial 
Mobile Radio Services; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On September 29, 2000, the Commission published a document in 
the Federal Register which established service rules governing the 
manual roaming responsibilities of Commercial Mobile Radio Services 
(CMRS) providers. This document makes corrections to that document.

DATES: Effective November 28, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Murray at (202) 418-7240.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission, in its summary of the 
Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O), FR Doc. 00-24964, published in the 
Federal Register of September 29, 2000 (65 FR 58477) released 
information that requires correction. First, it misstated the correct 
agency docket number for the item (CC Docket No. 94-54) in the headings 
section. Then, in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the 
preamble, the Commission erroneously incorporated a docket number and 
the associated adoption and release dates from another proceeding into 
this item thereby omitting the correct docket number for this 
proceeding (CC Docket No. 94-54), the correct adoption date of the MO&O 
(July 13, 2000), and the correct release date of the MO&O (August 28, 
2000). Further, this item corrects the phone listing for Paul Murray to 
418-7240.
    In FR Doc. 00-24964, published in the Federal Register of September 
29, 2000 (65 FR 58477), make the following corrections:
    (1) On page 58477, in the second column, in the Agency Docket 
number, correct ``PR Docket No. 94-54'' to read ``CC Docket No. 94-
54.''
    (2) On the same page, in the third column, line four, correct 
``(202) 418-0688'' to read ``(202) 418-7240.''
    (3) On the same page, in the same column, line 11, correct ``PR 
Docket No. 93-144'' to read ``CC Docket No. 94-54.''
    (4) On the same page, in the same column, line 12, correct ``August 
2, 2000'' to read ``July 13, 2000.''
    (5) On the same page, in the same column, lines 12 and 13, correct 
``August 4, 2000'' to read ``August 28, 2000.''

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-26893 Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-82,273-01

EX P ARTE BIL LY WAYNE MAR CY, Applicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. CR01988-HC- 1 IN THE 6th DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM RED RIVER C OUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of evading arr est and sente nced to two year s’ in state jail. Applicant contends that his counsel render ed ineffec tive assistance beca use counsel failed to timely file a notice of appe al. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief
. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Ex parte2

Axe l , 757 S.W .2d 369 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we he ld in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960) , the trial cour t is the appropri at e fo ru m for finding s of fac t. The trial court shall order counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel. The trial court may use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)
. I f the trial c ourt elec ts to hold a hear ing, it sha ll de termine whe ther Applica nt is indi g ent. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall ap p o i nt an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw as t o wh ether Applicant
was denied his rig ht to a meaning ful appea l beca use Applicant’s counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact a nd conclusions of law that it deems re levant and a

ppropriate to the dispositi on of Applica nt’s claim for ha

beas c orpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order
. A supplemental t ra n s cr i p t containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, alongwith the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of the date of this order
. Any extensions of ti me shall be obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: Nove mber 19, 2014 Do not publish
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Joseph C. Belle-Isle, Appellant.

County Court, Wayne County,

December 18, 1957.

*488
      *Augustus G. Nelson*for appellant.

*Roger E. Davis, District Attorney (Maurice E. Strobridge*of counsel), for respondent.

James D. Hurley, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of a Court of Special Sessions held by the Police Justice of the Village of Newark, New York, rendered August 24, 1957, convicting the defendant of violating sections 229 and 230 of the Ordinances of the Village of Newark in operating his automobile at an excessive rate of speed.

The appellant contends that the judgment of conviction is contrary to the evidence and that the People failed to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant further contends that section 230 of the Ordinances of the Village of Newark is vague in that it refers for determination of punishment to the Vehicle and Traffic Law.

The People produced only one witness, the arresting officer.

The defendant produced himself and his mother as witnesses. Defendant’s mother was riding in the automobile with him at the time of the alleged violation.

There was a sharp conflict of testimony, both as to speed and as to the location of the arrest.

The trial court observed the witnesses upon the stand during the trial. He chose to believe the testimony of the police officer in preference to that of the defendant and his witness.

The speed limit of the Village of Newark was 30 miles per hour. In view of the fact that the defendant admitted going 45 miles per hour just before being stopped, the location of the place of arrest became most important. This court cannot say that the Police Justice was required to accept or reject the testimony of any particular witness, and will not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.

While the arresting officer may not have had as much experience in estimating speed as may be desired, his estimation of speed taken together with the speedometer reading of an untested speedometer, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. *(People*v. *Heyser,*2 N Y 2d 390; *People*v. *Marsellus,*2 N Y 2d 653.)

Section 230 of the Village Ordinances of the Village of Newark is neither vague nor indefinite. (Vehicle and Traffic Law, § 54.)

Judgment of conviction affirmed. Prepare order accordingly,
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Annual Report of Pollex, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Seong Yong Cho, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Dated: April 13, 2010
/s/ Seong Yong ChoBy: Seong Yong ChoIts: President





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Pollex, Inc. and will be retained by Pollex, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ CHARLIE J. JACKSON, Claimant

- Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs , Respondent

- Appellee

______________________

2024

- 1292

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 23

- 3623, Chief Judge Margaret C. Bartley, Judge William S. Greenberg, and Judge Joseph L. Toth.

________ ______________
Before D YK , W ALLACH , and C UNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R
In response to the court’s January 22, 2024 show cause order , Charlie J. Jackson urges the court to excuse his untimely

- filed notice of appeal . The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has not responded

. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims entered final judgment in this case on October 6, Case: 24-1292 Document: 7-1 Page: 1 Filed: 03/22/2024JACKSON v. MCDONOUGH 2

2023 . The Veterans Court received Mr . Jackson’s notice of appeal 74 days later on December 19, 2023

. To be timely, a notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days of the entry of judgment. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) ; Fed. Cir. R. 1(a)(1)(D)

. As with appeals from district courts, the statutorily prescribed time for filing appeals from the Veterans Court is jurisdictional

, meaning that we cannot take account of individual circumstances for the untimely filing

. See Wagner v. Shinseki , 733 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Henderson v. Shinseki , 562 U.S. 428, 438

– 39 (2011) (indicating jurisdictional restrictions on the time for taking an appeal under section 7292(a)). Because M r

. Jackson’s notice of appeal was not filed within 60 days of the judgment of the Veterans Court , this court lacks jurisdicti on and must dismiss. *
Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The appeal is dismissed.

* The court notes that Mr. Jackson’s notice of appeal, filed with the Veterans Court within 30 days after the time to appeal expired, appears to argue that he was not timely served with the Veterans Court’s j udgment. ECF No. 1

- 2 at 1. We deem it appropriat e to transmit this order to the Veterans Court for it to consider whether Mr. Jackson’s submission could be construed as a motion for that court to extend the time to appeal and, if so, whether such relief is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107( c ) , Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5); cf. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a). Case: 24-1292 Document: 7-1 Page: 2 Filed: 03/22/2024JACKSON v. MCDONOUGH 3

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
(3) The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit a copy of this order and ECF No. 1

- 2 to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for its consideration.

M arch 22 , 2024 Date F OR THE C OURT

cc: United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Case: 24-1292 Document: 7-1 Page: 3 Filed: 03/22/2024
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-20614

Summary Calendar

SANDRA BANKS, 

 Plaintiff–Appellant,

versus

WAL-MART STORES TEXAS, L.L.C.; 

WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED,

 Defendants–Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CV-2259

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sandra Banks appeals a summary judgment dismissing her claim in this 

 

* 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

February 1, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-20614 Document: 00513858004 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2017
No. 16-20614

2

ordinary slip-and-fall case. The district court issued a comprehensive and 

detailed twenty-three-page opinion that carefully examined the record, the 

facts, and the applicable law that Texas courts apply to similar matters. We 

cannot improve on the district court’s explication, which demonstrates why 

summary judgment is appropriate.

On appeal, Banks raises a new issue, claiming that Wal-Mart’s and its 

employee’s “credibility is called into question by Wal-mart [sic] failing to save 

material video evidence.” She “may not assert it for the first time on appeal.” 

Miller v. Am. Strategic Ins. Corp., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 21731, at *4 (5th Cir. 

Dec. 6, 2016) (per curiam) (footnote omitted). 

The summary judgment is AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 16-20614 Document: 00513858004 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2017
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, 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

December 28, 2011 

h1219 

Order 

 

December 28, 2011 

143473 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143473 

 COA: 300568 

JOHN BOMAR, Macomb CC: 07-005808-FC 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 14, 2011 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Exhibit 32.2

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 Stone Container Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles A. Hinrichs, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,
as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|/s/CHARLES A. HINRICHSCharles A. Hinrichs
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
August 6, 2004 |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in
typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Stone Container Corporation and will be retained by Stone Container Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
# In the Missouri Court of Appeals

Eastern District

MARCH 3, 2015

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE

84.16(b) OR RULE 30.25(b).

1. ED99791 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V OUNDRE T. AKINS, APP

2. ED100507 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V SAMUEL M. SELSOR, APP

3. ED100767 STATE O F MISSOURI, RES V ROBERT LIGGETT, APP

4. ED100769 SANDRA A. EVOLA, RES V. CHARLES J. EVOLA, APP

5. ED100859 ANDREA L. NEWPORT, RES V. TIMOTHY J. NEWPORT,

APP

6. ED101011 STATE OF MI SSOURI, RES V JACOB DAVIS, APP

7. ED101044 DARRELL LEWIS, APP V. STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

8. ED101063 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V MARION ARRINGTON, APP

9. ED101102 TESSA VANVLERAH, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

10. ED101372 BARBARA VELASCO, APP V MARY BECK, RES

1 1. ED101413 JAMES JOHNSON, APP V SULLIVAN FIRE DEPT. RES

1 2. ED101449 ROBERT GRAY, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

1 3. ED101479 S.D.C., RES V Y.T.S., APP

1 4. ED101651 KIMBERLY AIELLO, APP V CITY OF OVERLAND & DES
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

N o
. 0 9

- 2 0 4 5 0 C o n f e r e n c e C a l e n d a r

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e

v
. S E V E R I A N O M E N D E Z

- F L O R E S , D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

A p p e a l f

r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e S o u t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f T e x a s U S D C N o
. 4 : 0 8

- C R

- 7 2 9

- 1

B e f o r e S M I T H , D E N N I S , a n d C L E M E N T , C i r c u i t J u d g e s
. P E R C U R I A M : * T h e F e d e r a l P u b l i c D e f e n d e r a p p o i n t e d t o r e p r e s e n t S e v e r i a n o M e n d e z F l o r e s h a s m o v e d f

o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w a n d h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h A n d e r s v
. C a l i f

o r n i a , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 7 3 8 ( 1 9 6 7 )

. M e n d e z - F l o r e s h a s f i l e d a r e s p o n s e
. O u r i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d , c o u n s e l ’ s b r i e f , a n d M e n d e z - F l o r e s ’ s

r e s p o n s e d i s c l o s e s n o n o n f r i v o l o u s i s s u e f

o r a p p e a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y , c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n f o r l e a v e t o w i t h d r a w i s G R A N T E D , c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r

r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a n d t h e A P P E A L I S D I S M I S S E D

. S e e 5 T H C I R

. R

. 4 2

. 2

. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Octob er 26 , 20 10 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 09-20450 Document: 00511274642 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/26/2010
Exhibit 23.1
  CONSENT OF
 INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS
  To the Board of Directors
  SONDE RESOURCES CORP.
  We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-176261 on Form S-8 and to the use of our reports, dated March 22, 2012, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Sonde Resources Corp. and the effectiveness of Sonde Resources Corp.'s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of Sonde Resources Corp. for the year ended December 31, 2011.
  /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
  
  Independent Registered Chartered Accountants
  Calgary, Canada
 March 22, 2012
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22

- 0729

_________________ JAMIE NORRIS,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. RICK L. OLSEN d/b/a A&O SHEET METAL,

Defendant, Appellee and Cross -Appellant. O R D E R

_________________ This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with Rules 11 and 12 of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the Appellee ’ s answer and
cross - appeal brief filed electronically on June 19, 202 3, this Court has determined that the brief does not comply with Rule 12 and must be supplemented as provided below. Pursuant to M. R. App. P. 12(1)(i) and 12 (4) , cross - appellants must attach an appendix that includes the relevant judgment, orders, findings of fact, conclusions of law, jury instructions, rulings, or decisions from which the appeal is taken. A ppellee ’ s appendix did not contain the relevant documents. Accordingly, while the Court accepts filing of Appellee ’ s answer and cross - appeal brief , the Court requests Appellee electronically file the relevant document from which he appeals. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, the Appellee shall electronically file with the Clerk of this Court the relevant judgment or order from which the appeal is taken, and that copies of the relevant judgment or order be served on all parties of record ; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the times for any subsequent briefing contained in M. R. App. P. 13 shall run from the date o f filing of the relevant judgement or order

. The Clerk is directed to provide a true copy of this Order to the Appellee and to all parties of record. Electronically signed by: Dirk Sandefur Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 21 2023

06/21/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0729
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>     5
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,406
<SECURITIES>                                     2,389
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,542
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (964)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,687
<PP&E>                                          16,439
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,071)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,918
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,680
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,522)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    25,238
<SALES>                                         70,295
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,295
<CGS>                                           38,717
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,162
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    79
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,297)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (3,034)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,263)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,263)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.28)


</TABLE>