alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. ER00-1997-000]

The Commission's Dispute Resolution Service will conduct a convening session on October 11, 2000, commencing at 10 a.m., in Room 3M-1 at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC. Following informal conversations between the Dispute Resolution Service and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, the parties agreed to an Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process to resolve their disputes in the above-captioned dockets. The convening session will be held to finalize the ADR process. The Dispute Resolution Service will also assist the parties in better identifying and clarifying the issues in the above-captioned dockets for the follow-up ADR session. If a party has any questions, please call Deborah Osborne at (202) 208-0831.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-26178  Filed 10-11-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-83,305-01

EX PARTE JOSE ELIAS PEREZ-GUERRA, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 2008CRN000610-D1 (A) IN THE 49TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM WEBB COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleaded guilty to murder and was

sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment. He did not appeal his conviction.

Applicant contends, amongotherthings, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance 1

because counsel did not explore or raise a self-defense theory. Applicant alleges that he was acting

in self-defense because the victim was threatening him with a weapon and attempting to sexually

This Court has considered Applicant’s other claims and finds them to be without merit. 1
2

assault him. 

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

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

circumstances, additional facts are needed. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez, 334 S.W.2d 294, 294

(Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropriate forum for findings of fact. The trial court

shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Specifically, trial counsel shall state whetherthere was any evidence to indicate that Applicant acted

in self-defense, and if so, why trial counsel did not advise Applicant to go to trial and try to establish

self defense rather than pleading guilty. The trial court may use any means set out in TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d).

If the trial court elects to hold a hearing, it shall determine whether Applicant is indigent. 

If Applicant is indigent and wishes to be represented by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an

attorney to represent Applicant at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 26.04. 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whether the

performance of Applicant’s trial counsel was deficient and, if so, whether counsel’s deficient

performance prejudiced Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other findings of fact and

conclusions of law that it deems relevant and appropriate to the disposition of Applicant’s claim for

habeas corpus relief.

This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fact issues. The

issues shall be resolved within 90 days of this order. A supplemental transcript containing all

affidavits and interrogatories or the transcription of the court reporter’s notes from any hearing or

deposition, along with the trial court’s supplemental findings of fact and conclusions of law, shall
3

be forwarded to this Court within 120 days of the date of this order. Any extensions of time shall

be obtained from this Court. 

Filed: June 10, 2015

Do not publish
#### LYNCH v. STATE.

No. 23559.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 22, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Rape is the offense; the punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

Prosecutrix, a 13-year-old girl, testified that appellant by force and without her consent raped her. She said the act of intercourse was complete.

The day following the assault, pros-ecutrix made an outcry, as a result of which a physician made a physical examination' of her privates. The examination failed to evidence a complete penetration of the female’s privates but it did reveal a penetration of the vulva or labia.

Such facts are deemed sufficient to establish penetration, as required in a prosecution for rape. Mirick v. State, 83 Tex.Cr.R. 388, 204 S.W. 222; Brown v. State, 112 Tex.Cr.R. 92, 14 S.W.2d 63.

Appellant denied the assault attributed to him by the prosecutrix and defended on the ground that if prosecutrix was raped, as claimed by her, it was by some other person.

The defensive theory was pertinently submitted to the jury, and no exception or objection to the court’s charge was reserved to the court’s charge.

No bills of exception accompany the record.

The facts being sufficient to warrant the jury’s conclusion of guilt, 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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-50387

Summary Calendar

LYNN C. GUTHRIE; GINA LYNN GUTHRIE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

DITECH FINANCIAL, L.L.C., formerly known as Green Tree Servicing, 

L.L.C.,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:16-CV-171

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se as they did in the district court, Plaintiffs-Appellants 

appeal the April 20, 2017 Final Judgment of that court dismissing all of their 

claims and causes of action without prejudice. We have carefully reviewed 

the record on appeal, including the briefs of the parties, the exhaustive April 

20, 2017 Order of the district court, and the even more exhaustive Report and 

Recommendation of the magistrate judge to whom the district court initially 

 

* 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

October 24, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-50387 Document: 00514208110 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2017
No. 17-50387

2

assigned this matter. As a result, we are convinced beyond cavil that the 

aforesaid Final Judgment of the district court is not only free of error but 

eminently correct. For essentially the same reasons as explicated by the 

district court and the magistrate judge, the judgment appealed from is, in all 

respects,

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 17-50387 Document: 00514208110 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC,

Plaintiff, 

v.

ZTE CORPORATION,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO. W-20-CV-00490-ADA

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF

THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO: THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), and Rules 1(f) and 4(b) of Appendix C of the Local Rules 

of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. Before the Court is the parties’ Agreed 

Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) (ECF No. 262). For the following reasons

given via the Oral Ruling at the January 17, 2023 hearing, the Court RECOMMENDS that the 

Case be DISMISSED with PREJUDICE.

Given the amount of time the Court dedicated to that case, a dismissal with prejudice is 

appropriate. Any requests for fees or costs can be addressed at a later date through a later motion, if the Defendants decide to file one.

V. OBJECTIONS

Case 6:20-cv-00490-ADA-DTG Document 282 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 2
2

The parties may wish to file objections to this Report and Recommendation. Parties filing 

objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which they object. 

The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. 

U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).

A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations 

contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and 

recommendations in the Report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 

150–53 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 

Except upon grounds of plain error, failing to object shall further bar the party from appellate 

review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District 

Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150–53; Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1415.

Dated: January 17, 2023.

____________________________________

DEREK T. GILLILAND

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00490-ADA-DTG Document 282 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 2
#### Sprung, Admx., Appellee, *v.*E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Appellant.

(No. 27706

Decided November 15, 1939.)

*Messrs. Power & Barton,*for appellee.

*Messrs. Vorys, Safer, Seymour S Pease*and *Mr. Wilbur E. Benoy,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that said, appeal as of right he, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

Williams, J., not participating.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                       3,368,875
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  863,409
<ALLOWANCES>                                    70,000
<INVENTORY>                                  3,664,767
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,706,518
<PP&E>                                       4,856,738
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,915,569
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,018,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,761,699
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       129,454
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,670,762
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,018,495
<SALES>                                      1,071,356
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,106,022
<CGS>                                          381,550
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,416,884
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,780
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,207
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,317,850)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (329,462)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (988,388)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (988,388)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.77)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 205 (Monday, October 23, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27154]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL-6889-5]


Indiana: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management 
Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of immediate final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are withdrawing the immediate final rule for Indiana: Final 
Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision 
published on July 26, 2000, which approved changes to its hazardous 
waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 
We stated in the immediate final rule that if we received written 
comments that oppose this authorization during the comment period, we 
would publish a timely notice of withdrawal in the Federal Register. 
Subsequently, we received comments that oppose this action. We will 
address these comments in a subsequent final action based on the 
proposed rule also published on July 26, 2000, at 65 FR 45955.

DATES: As of October 23, 2000, we withdraw the immediate final rule 
published on July 26, 2000 at 65 FR 45925.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Westefer, Indiana Regulatory 
Specialist, U.S. EPA Region 5, DM-7J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-7450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Because we received written comments that 
oppose this authorization, we are withdrawing the immediate final rule 
for Indiana: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management 
Program Revision published on July 26, 2000, at 65 FR 45925, which 
intended to grant authorization for revision to Indiana's hazardous 
waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 
We stated in the immediate final rule that if we received written 
comments that oppose this authorization during the comment period, we 
would publish a timely notice of withdrawal in the Federal Register. 
Subsequently, we received comments that oppose this action. We will 
address all comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposed 
rule previously published on July 26, 2000, at 65 FR 45955. We will not 
provide for additional comment during the final action.

    Dated: October 6, 2000.
Francis X. Lyons,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 00-27154 Filed 10-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 00-30583 Summary Calendar

JODITH SAVOIE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

SEACRAFT SHIPYARD,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Louisiana

(99-CV-1872)

December 29, 2000

Before DAVIS, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Jodith Savoie, a w hite female, was employed by Seacraft

Shipyard for approximately ten months ending April 3, 1998. Savoie

retained an attorney and on September 19, 1998, filed a charge of

discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(“EEOC”) against Seacraft asserting that she was sexually harassed,2

discriminated against, and discharged because of her gender. On

October 25, 1998, the EEOC issued its dismissal and notice of

rights which specifically provided that “If you decide to sue, you

must sue within 98 days from your receipt of this notice.” Savoie

did not file timely suit after receipt of the right to sue notice.

Instead, on Janua ry 19, 1999, Savoie filed a duplicate identical

charge of discrimination against Seacraft reiterating her assertion

that she was sexually harassed, discriminated against, and

discharged because of her gender. Savoie declined to participate

in an EEOC mediation of her claims and on July 30, 1999, the EEOC

issued a second dismissal and notice of right which was mailed to

Savoie. Savoie did not file her complaint against Seacraft until

October 12, 1999, almost one year after the EEOC’s issuance of its

first dismissal and notice of rights. Seacraft moved for summary

judgment which the district court granted. Savoie timely appeals.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the rep ly brief, the

record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. For

the reasons stated by the district court in its memorandum ruling

filed under date of April 5 , 2000, we affirm the Final Judgment

entered in favor of Seacraft under date of April 25, 2000.

AFFIRMED

.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Peter G. Savas, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Boston Life Sciences, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) [Not Applicable];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   DATE: August 14, 2006 /s/ Peter G. Savas     **Peter G. Savas**  **Chief Executive Officer**
EXHIBIT G

Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 1 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 2 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 3 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 4 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 5 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 6 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 7 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 8 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 9 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 10 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 11 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 12 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 13 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 14 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 15 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 16 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 17 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 18 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 19 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 20 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 21 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 22 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 23 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 24 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 25 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 26 of 27
Case 6:20-cv-00534-ADA Document 47-11 Filed 03/05/21 Page 27 of 27
Exhibit 2

Case 6:20-cv-00529-ADA Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/20 Page 1 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00529-ADA Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/20 Page 2 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00529-ADA Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/20 Page 3 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00529-ADA Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/20 Page 4 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00529-ADA Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/20 Page 5 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00529-ADA Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/20 Page 6 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00529-ADA Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/20 Page 7 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00529-ADA Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/20 Page 8 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00529-ADA Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/20 Page 9 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00529-ADA Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/20 Page 10 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00529-ADA Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/20 Page 11 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00529-ADA Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/20 Page 12 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00529-ADA Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/20 Page 13 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00529-ADA Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/20 Page 14 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00529-ADA Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/20 Page 15 of 16
Case 6:20-cv-00529-ADA Document 1-2 Filed 06/16/20 Page 16 of 16