alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 203 (Thursday, October 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62710-62711]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-26940]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[I.D. 101100B]


Permits; Foreign Fishing

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of receipt of foreign fishing application.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS publishes for public review and comment a summary of an 
application submitted by the Government of the Russian Federation 
requesting authorization to conduct fishing operations in the U.S. 
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in 2001 under provisions of the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted to NMFS, Office of Sustainable 
Fisheries, International Fisheries Division, 1315 East-West Highway, 
Silver Spring, MD 20910; and/or to the Regional Fishery Management 
Councils listed here:
    Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management 
Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01905, Phone (978) 
465-0492, Fax (978) 465-3116;
    Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery 
Management Council, Federal Building, Room 2115, 300 South New Street, 
Dover, DE 19904, Phone (302) 674-2331, Fax (302) 674-4136.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert A. Dickinson, Office of 
Sustainable Fisheries, (301) 713-2276.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with a Memorandum of 
Understanding with the Secretary of State, NMFS publishes, for public 
review and comment, summaries of applications received by the Secretary 
of State requesting permits for foreign fishing vessels to fish in the 
U.S. EEZ under provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 
et seq.).
    This notice concerns the receipt of an application from the 
Government of the Russian Federation requesting

[[Page 62711]]

authorization to conduct joint venture (JV) operations in 2001 in the 
Northwest Atlantic Ocean for Atlantic mackerel and Atlantic herring. 
The large stern trawler/processors BREEZE, PASSAT and VASILIY LOZOVSKIY 
are identified as the Russian vessels that would receive Atlantic 
mackerel and Atlantic herring from U.S. vessels in JV operations. The 
application also requests an allocation of 1,000 metric tons (mt) of 
Atlantic mackerel and 2,000 mt of Atlantic herring for harvest by the 
VASILIY LOZOVSKIY in 2001.

    Dated: October 12, 2000.
Bruce C. Morehead,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 00-26940 Filed 10-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-1213

In re: MYRON RODERICK NUNN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:10-cv-00164-CCE-LPA)

Submitted: June 16, 2011 Decided: June 20, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Myron Roderick Nunn, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Myron Roderick Nunn petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. He seeks an order from this 

court directing the district court to act. Our review of the 

district court’s docket reveals that the district court denied 

Nunn’s petition on June 7, 2011. Accordingly, because the 

district court has recently decided Nunn’s case, we deny the 

mandamus petition as moot. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2908 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2908

  To amend the Small Business Act to allow the use of physical damage 
           disaster loans for the construction of safe rooms.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 1, 2013

   Mr. Cole introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Small Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Small Business Act to allow the use of physical damage 
           disaster loans for the construction of safe rooms.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Tornado Family Safety Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. USE OF PHYSICAL DAMAGE DISASTER LOANS.

    Section 7(b)(1)(A) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
636(b)(1)(A)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``the Administration may increase'' and 
        inserting ``the Administration may, subject to section 18(a), 
        increase''; and
            (2) by striking ``and modifying structures'' and inserting 
        ``, and modifying structures (including construction of a safe 
        room or similar storm shelter designed to protect property and 
        occupants from tornadoes or other natural disasters)''.
                                 <all>
```
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk October 26, 2009

p1019 

# Order

October 26, 2009

139182

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 139182 COA: 290408 Wayne CC: 06-013859-FH BILLY RAY MORROW, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the May 18, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit
23.1
 
 Consent of Independent
Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 The Board
of Directors
 GSV,
Inc.:
  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-75159 and 333-91575) of GSV, Inc. of our report dated March 30,
2009, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of GSV, Inc. as of December
31, 2008, and December 31, 2007, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, changes in stockholders' equity (deficiency in assets) and cash
flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2008
annual report on Form 10-K of GSV, Inc.
 
  /s/ UHY
LLP
 New
Haven, Connecticut
 March 30,
2009
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. 08-60483

Summary Calendar

CLAUDIA SIFUENTES-ASTURIAS; CESAR ASTURIAS-SIFUENTES; EDWIN

JOVANY ASTURIAS-SIFUENTES; CLAUDIA LALILA ASTURIASSIFUENTES; KEVIN JEORDAO ASTURIAS-SIFUENTES,

Petitioners

v.

ERIC H HOLDER, JR, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A75 575 102

BIA No. A75 575 103

BIA No. A75 575 104

BIA No. A75 575 105

BIA No. A75 575 106

Before KING, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Petitioners, Claudia Sifuentes-Asturias, Cesar Asturias-Sifuentes,

Edwin Jovany Asturias-Sifuentes, Claudia Lalila Asturias-Sifuentes, and Kevin

Jeordao Asturias-Sifuentes, citizens of Guatemala, petition this court for review

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 7, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60483

2

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying their motion to

reopen removal proceedings. The BIA determined, inter alia, that the motion to

reopen was filed almost six years after the BIA’s dismissal of their appeal and

the motion was therefore untimely. The Petitioners argue that the delay in

filing their motion was attributable to ineffective assistance of counsel and the

time limit for filing such a motion should therefore be equitably tolled.

Subject to certain exceptions that are inapplicable here, a motion to reopen

removal proceedings “must be filed no later than 90 days after the date on which

the final administrative decision was rendered in the proceeding sought to be

reopened.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2). The only authority for reopening the

Petitioners’ removal proceeding was the BIA’s sua sponte authority to reopen the

case pursuant to § 1003.2(a). See Ramos-Bonilla v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 216, 219-

20 (5th Cir. 2008). Under § 1003.2(a), the BIA has complete discretion to deny

untimely motions to reopen. See id. This court lacks jurisdiction to review such

decisions and therefore lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision in the

instant proceeding. See id. at 220; Enriquez-Alvarado v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 246,

248-50 (5th Cir. 2004).

PETITION DISMISSED.
#### The State, ex rel. Frye, Exr., *v.*MacConkey, Probate Judge.

(No. 28043

Decided March 27, 1940.)

*Mr. Frank C. Leyshon,*for relator.

*Mr. Jess J. Fasekas, Messrs. Moore £ Moore, Mr. George D. Dugan*and *Mr. James W. Bell,*for respondent. .

By the Court.

A writ of mandamus will not lie to control judicial discretion. Section 12285, Q-eneral Code.

A writ of prohibition cannot be invoked as a substitute for an appeal and will not be issued to prevent an anticipated erroneous judgment. *State, ex rel. Norris,*v. *Hodapp, Judge,*135 Ohio St., 26, 18 N. E. (2d), 984, and authorities cited therein.

Demurrer to petition sustained and writs denied.

*Writs denied.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
Exhibit
23









CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




The Board
of Directors


Citizens
South Banking Corporation


Gastonia,
North Carolina




We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-8 (Nos. 333-103218, 333-77657 and 333-111228) of Citizens South Banking
Corporation and subsidiaries of our report dated March 16, 2009, related to the
audits of the consolidated statements of condition as of December 31, 2008 and
2007, and the related consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income,
changes in stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the three years ended
December 31, 2008, which are included in the December 31, 2008 Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Citizens South Banking Corporation and subsidiaries.




/s/
Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, L.L.P.




Gastonia,
North Carolina


March 16,
2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMPANY'S
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   MAY-29-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        NOV-28-1998
<CASH>                                   53,678
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                           252,008<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                             241,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        669,902
<PP&E>                                  830,441
<DEPRECIATION>                          401,931
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        1,299,784
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   460,518
<BONDS>                                 150,972
<COMMON>                                137,922
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                              462,138<F2>
 <TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         1,299,784
<SALES>                                 851,143
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        851,143
<CGS>                                   540,622
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           540,622
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       (133,138)
<INCOME-TAX>                           (42,604)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (90,534)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                           (90,534)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            (1.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (1.87)
<FN>
<F1> Amount represents net accounts receivable.
<F2> Amount includes retained earnings and other comprehensive income.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### MARVIN v. STATE.

No. 26417.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 6, 1953.

*442No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

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

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is driving a motor vehicle upon a public road while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $100.

No statement of facts or bills of exception are brought forward in the record. All proceedings appear to be regular.

The judgment is affirmed.
WESLEY CARROLL, 

Plaintiff, 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FILED 

MA;~ ? 4 2009 

NANCY MAYER WHITTINGTON. CLERK 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Civil Action No. 09-0076 (UNA) 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 

Defendant. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Under the Prison Litigation Refonn Act ("PLRA"), a prisoner may not proceed in forma 

pauperis if while incarcerated he has filed at least three prior cases that were dismissed as 

frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.c. § 1915(g); see Ibrahim v. District 

of Columbia, 463 F.3d 3, 6 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Ibrahim v. District of Columbia, 208 F.3d 1032, 

1033 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Smith v. District of Columbia, 182 F.3d 25,29 (D.C. Cir. 1999). There is 

an exception for a prisoner who shows that he "is under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury" at the time he files suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Plaintiff is not eligible to proceed informa 

pauperis because he has accumulated more than "three strikes" for purposes of the PLRA. See, 

e.g., Carroll v. Clerk of Court, No. 08-1684,2009 WL 112546, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 15,2009) 

(denying motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.c. § 1915(g) and 

dismissing complaint without prejudice to re-filing after payment of the filing fee). Moreover, 

review of the complaint reveals that plaintiff brings this action against the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation under the Freedom of Infonnation Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 552, and nothing in the 

pleading suggests that plaintiff is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. Absent such an 
allegation, plaintiff does not overcome the bar imposed by Section 1915(g). 

Accordingly, the Court denies plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis and 

dismisses this action under 28 U.S.c. § 1915(g). 

DATE: ~ 2.. ~/ 2tJo i
High Desert Power Project 

EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0129 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 

HIGH DESERT POWER PROJECT (HDPP) 

PSD PERMIT (SE 98-01) 

Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0129 

DOCKET INDEX 

Docket Section or Item Date of Item FDMS

 

I. Documents Submitted by Applicant 

 Proposed Revisions/Administrative Changes to Conditions 

in PSD Permit NSR 4-4-4, SE 98-01 to Gerardo Rios 4/6/04 √ 

 Proposed Revisions/Administrative Changes to Conditions 

in PSD Permit NSR 4-4-4, SE 98-01 to Gerardo Rios 9/20/06 √ 

 Proposed Revisions/Administrative Changes to Conditions 

in PSD Permit NSR 4-4-4, SE 98-01 to Deborah Jordan 12/5/07 √ 

 Proposed Revisions/Administrative Changes to Conditions 

in PSD Permit NSR 4-4-4, SE 98-01, regarding 

Startup/Shutdown Provisions to Anita Lee 

12/5/07 √ 

 Information to Support Request to Revise PSD Permit SE 

98-01, including copy of Toshiba Turbine Operation 

Instruction Manual and CEMS Monitoring Plan to Anita 

Lee 

4/7/08 √ 

 Email Response from Jon Boyer to Anita Lee 4/22/08 √ 

 Email Response from Jon Boyer to Anita Lee 4/25/08 √ 

 Information to Support Request to Revise PSD Permit SE 

98-01 to Anita Lee 7/28/08 √ 

 Administrative Order of Consent to HDPP 10/31/08 √ 

 Email from Jon Boyer to Anita Lee 9/25/09 √ 

II. California Energy Commission (CEC) Documents 

 Request for US EPA Concurrence Regarding Two Air 

Quality Amendment Requests from Terrence O’Brien to

Deborah Jordan 

10/26/07 √ 

 Staff Analysis of Proposed Modifications of Air Quality 

Conditions Relating to Source Test Intervals and Other 

Administrative Changes 

4/8/08 √ 
High Desert Power Project 

EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0129 

III. Initial Permit Documents 

 Initial PSD Permit (SE 98-01) 2/01 √ 

 Ambient Air Quality Impact Report (NSR 4-4-4, SE 98-01) 2/01 √ 

IV. Correspondence from EPA 

 Response to CEC Request for US EPA Concurrence 

Regarding Two Air Quality Amendment Requests from 

Gerardo Rios to Terrence O’Brien 

1/10/08 √ 

V. Notice of the Proposed Draft Permit 

 Cover Letter to HDPP re: proposed PSD permit 2/5/10 √ 

 Proposed PSD Permit Revision (SE 98-01) 2/10 √ 

 Statement of Basis and Appendix 1 and 2 2/10 √ 

 Public Notice 2/10 √ 

 Aviso al Publico 2/10 √ 

 

VI. Final Permit Documents 

 Cover Letter to HDPP 3/10 √

 Final PSD Permit 3/10 √
### IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2022 ND 74

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v. Paxton Benjamin Heywood, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20210259

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Pamela A

. Nesvig , Judge.

AFFIRMED

. Per Curiam

. Anna A. Argenti, Assistant State’s Attorney, Bismarck, N

. D ., for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Joshua L. Weatherspoon and Aaron D. Pulanco , Bismarck, N

. D

. , for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.1 State v. Heywood No. 20210259
Per Curiam

. [¶1] Paxton Heywood appeals from a criminal judgment entered after a jury found him guilty of gross sexual imposition. Heywood argues the district court erred by granting the State’s m otion to amend the information , and the jury verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude substantial evidence exists that could allow a jury to draw a reasonable inference in favor of conviction. We also conclude the court did not abuse its discretion by granting the State’s motion to amend the information

. We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (4).
[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte
EXHIBIT A

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 32-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 1 of 15
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 32-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 2 of 15
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 32-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 3 of 15
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 32-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 4 of 15
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 32-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 5 of 15
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 32-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 6 of 15
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 32-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 7 of 15
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 32-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 8 of 15
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 32-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 9 of 15
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 32-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 10 of 15
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 32-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 11 of 15
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 32-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 12 of 15
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 32-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 13 of 15
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 32-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 14 of 15
Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 32-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 15 of 15
> Exhibit 32
> 
> 
> Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officerand Chief Financial Officer
> 
> 
> Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350
> 
> 
> Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Teltronics, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
> /s/ EWEN R. CAMERONEwen R. CameronChief Executive Officer
> /s/ RUSSELL R. LEE IIIRussell R. Lee IIIChief Financial Officer
> Date: November 14, 2005
EXHIBIT 21.1





EXTENDED SYSTEMS INCORPORATED





List of Subsidiaries





Advance Systems Limited (United Kingdom)


Appreach, Inc. (Maryland, U.S.)


Counterpoint Systems Foundry, Inc. (Oregon, U.S.)


Extended Systems Benelux B.V. (Netherlands)


Extended Systems
Bristol Limited (United Kingdom)


Extended Systems GmbH (Germany)


Extended Systems Holdings Limited (United Kingdom)


Extended Systems International, Inc. (Idaho, U.S.)


Extended Systems Italia S.R.L. (Italy)


Extended Systems
Limited (United Kingdom)


Extended Systems of Idaho, Inc. (Idaho, U.S.)


Extended Systems of Wyoming, Inc. (Wyoming, U.S.)


Extended Systems SARL (France)


Extended Systems U.S. Virgin Islands, Inc. (U.S. Virgin Islands)


Rand Software Corporation (Vermont, U.S.)


Zebedee Software Limited (United Kingdom)
#### HALL v. STATE.

No. 26415.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 6, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

Driving while intoxicated upon a public highway is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The record before us contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court
#### SISK v. STATE.

No. 25349.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 13, 1951.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1951.

W. M. Tucker, Wellington, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for driving on a public highway in Hall County while intoxicated. The penalty assessed was a fine of $175.00 and 30 days in jail.

The state has filed a motion to strike the bills of exception and statement *433of facts because the same were not filed within the time provided by law. The record sustains this contention and the motion is accordingly granted.

The record is therefore before us without bills of exception or statement of facts, in which condition it presents nothing for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

On ]\lotion for Rehearing

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

In this misdemeanor case, the statement of facts ánd bills of exception were not filed within the 30 days allowed by Art. 760(5), Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. (since repealed), the procedural statute applicable at the-time notice óf appeal was given and when the case was submitted in this Court.

Also, it is observed that the statement of facts filed was not approved by the trial judge as then required 'by Art. 760, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. See Moore v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 227 S.W.2d 219.

The judgment was therefore properly affirmed. Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion approved by the Court-
Case 5:20-cv-00746-JKP Document 96 Filed 08/04/22 Page 1 of 1