alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 208 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 64215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27549]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RT01-15-000]


Avista Corporation, The Montana Power Company, Nevada Power 
Company, Portland General Electric Company, Puget Sound Energy, Inc., 
Sierra Pacific Power Company; Notice of Filing

October 20, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 16, 2000, the above-captioned companies 
(collectively Applicants) tendered a filing in compliance with Order 
No. 2000 and a petition for declaratory order pursuant to section 
35.34(d) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) 
regulations and rule 207(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, 18 CFR 35.34(d) and 207(a)(2)(2000).
    Applicants request the Commission to find that if they form an 
independent transmission company (ITC) consistent with the ITC 
described in the filing, that the subject ITC would be considered 
independent and would be permitted to share certain functions with the 
regional transmission organization Applicants will seek to join.
    Any person desiring to be heard or protest such filing should file 
a motion to intervene, comments, or protests with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington DC 20426, in 
accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions, comments 
and protests should be filed on or before November 20, 2000. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a 
motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may 
also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Beginning November 1, 
2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the 
internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the 
instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-27549 Filed 10-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
December 18, 1962 

Honorable W. C. Lindsey 

Criminal District Attorney 

Jefferson County 

Beaumont, Texas 

Opinion No. WW-1504 

Re: Whether, under the provisions of Article 3912e, 

Sec. 7, V.C.S., and the 

stated'facts, a salary 

warrant 'should be drawn' 

Dear Mr. Lindsey: In favor of the sheriff. 

You have requested the opinion of this office 

as to whether'the county auditor ls'authorlzed,to'draw a 

warrant In favor of the'sherlff In view of certain stated 

facts and the'provlsions of Article 3912e, Sec.'7, Vernon's 

Civil Statutes. 

Article 3912e, Sec. 7, is quoted in pertinent part 

as follows: 

"No warrant shall be drawn on said 

fund or funds In favor of any person indebted to thestate, county or to said' 

fund or in favor of hfs'agent or assignee 

until such debt is paid." 

The factual situation that gives rise to this present 

question is as follows: The County Auditor has charged that 

a deputy sheriff has misappropriated a certain sum of'money 

and restitution has been made of a portion of these funds. 

You ask whether the above-quoted statute operates to prohibit 

the county auditor from issuing a salary warrant In favor of 

the sheriff while such monies remain unpaid to Jefferson 

County. 

Black's Law Dlatlonary, 4th Ed., defines the word "lndebtednesa" as "the owing of a sum of money upon a certain 

and express agreement." The word "debt" ~1s defined as "a 

sum of money due by certain and expressagreement; as by bond 

for a determinate sum, a bill or note, where the amount is 
Hon. W. C. Lindsey, page 2 (WW-1504) 

fixed and specific and'does not depend upon any subsequent 

valuation to settle It." The fact 'that the county auditor's 

office has certified that a certain amount Is missing from 

county funds Is not sufficient to lmpose'an absolute llabllity upon the sheriff for such an amount. Thus, we must 

say that there Is no "debt" or "Indebtedness" which has. been 

definitely ascertained In this particular fact situation. In 

the event that a court of competent jurisdiction should enter 

a final judgment establishing such a definite sum as the llablllty of the sheriff, then, and only ln'that event, would 

a debt arise from this set of circumstances. 

Certainly, the sheriff would appear to be In the position of owing the county a sum of money; however, this 

cum of money dannot by Its very nature.be'sufflciently deflnite as to permit the operation of Sec. 7 of Article 3912e. 

See Attorney General's Opinion No. o-1089 (1939). 

SUMMARY 

Under the.stated facts; Article 3912e, 

Sec. 7, V.C.S., doesnot authorize the 

county auditor to refuse to issue salary 

warrants to the sheriff, Inasmuch as no 

valid debt In favor of the county exists 

at this time. 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

MI&m8 By ddu& 

Assistant 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMI,TTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Sam Stone 

Albert Pruett 

Wm. H. Pool, Jr. 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: Leonard Passmore
**Concerning TS**  **- DL12**  **- Y4**  **- Section 2 of the SDS:**  

## Sanitized
<TABLE> <S> <C>


   

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000939730
<NAME>                        EXPERT SOFTWARE, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                         4,111
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8,257
<ALLOWANCES>                                   5,223
<INVENTORY>                                    736
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               12,790
<PP&E>                                         3,806
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,110
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 18,204
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,271
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       75
<OTHER-SE>                                     10,758
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   18,204
<SALES>                                        8,027
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               8,027
<CGS>                                          3,134
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  7,417
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               98
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                638
<INCOME-TAX>                                   236
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            402
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   402
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .05
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND THE BALANCE SHEET AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,937
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      549
<ALLOWANCES>                                        70
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,447
<PP&E>                                           1,018
<DEPRECIATION>                                     678
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              356
<BONDS>                                          3,112
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,976
<OTHER-SE>                                     (22,729)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,903
<SALES>                                            274
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   274
<CGS>                                              222
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      725
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (25)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (658)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (658)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (658)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.06)
        


</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HAN ZHANG LU,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 08-73934

Agency No. A097-883-908

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted July 12, 2011** 

Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges. 

Han Zhang Lu, a native and citizen of China, petitions for review of the

Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum and withholding

of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

FILED

JUL 14 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 08-73934

substantial evidence, Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184–85 (9th Cir.

2006), and we deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Lu is ineligible

for asylum where he conceded he suffered no past persecution and failed to

establish a well-founded fear of future persecution in China. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(42)(A); Arriaga-Barrientos v. INS, 937 F.2d 411, 414 (9th Cir. 1991)

(noting that persecution of a petitioner’s family members may establish a wellfounded fear, despite a lack of persecution against the petitioner, only if the

persecution is “closely tied to the petitioner”). Accordingly, Lu’s asylum claim

fails. 

Because Lu failed to prove eligibility for asylum, Lu has necessarily failed

to prove eligibility for withholding of removal. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d

1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003). 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

_________________________________ 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

June 7, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, 130613 

 Justices 

AMOS WELLS,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 130613 

v COA: 257610 

Bay CC: 02-004063-CL

COUNTY OF BAY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

AMENDMENT TO ORDER 

On order of the Court, the order of May 30, 2006 is amended to correct the caption 

to reflect that the appellant in this Court is the defendant County of Bay. 

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. 

June 7, 2006 

Clerk
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

No. 07-0443

IN RE  NELSON B. FREIMER, M.D.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus

**ORDERED:**

1.Relator’s motion for temporary stay, filed June 1, 2007, is granted.  The order dated March 5, 2007 granting Motion to Compel Responses to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production in Cause No. C-2195-02-C, styled *Dr. Michael A. Escamilla v. Nelson B. Freimer, M.D., Victor I. Reus, M.D. and The University of California San Francisco*, in the 139th District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, are stayed pending further order of this Court.

2.The petition for writ of mandamus remains pending before this Court.

Done at the City of Austin, this September 21, 2007.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEY GENERALOFAUSTIN 

Honorable Walker Carson 

county Attorney 

Hudspeth County 

Sierra Elanca, Tsar 

Dear Sir: Opinion Wo. C-3040 

Ra: ~~~~~y.,Sunsyors - qualiflos- 

- license not required. 

"Can CoB4slrlonere' court legaUy.appoint 

to the oftice of Cougtp;$urveyor a person who 

Is not llosnsad surveyor but has had twenty 

years experlenae and holds asaoalate oon&ructlon engineer rating with civil servles Artfole . 

5299 Revised Civil .?ta%utes?" 

has bean recefved and oarefully oonsldered by this depament. 

provides: 

Section 44, OS Artiola 13 of our State Constitution 

"See. 44. The Legislature shall prescribe 

the duties and povide for the eleation by the 

quallSiod voters of eaoh oouhtp in this State, 

of a oounty treasurer and a county surveyor, 

who shall have an offlcs at the county seat, 

and bold their oSfice for two yeare, a& until 

their successors are yaallfied; and shall have 

such cm:gmsation a8 may be provided by law.- 

It till be aoted that, the above quoted section OS 

the Constitution does not require a lioense or any other particular qualifications for a,County Surveyor. 

Secate sill 351 OS the 47th Legislature of Texas 

is a conprehensive menduent to Articles 5238 - 3232, inolu- 
Honorable Walker Carson, Page 2 

sive, behling with *Lieenee~ Land Surveyors". We quote from 

opinion No. O-3719 of this deptkrtaent which construes said 

senate, hill, ea ~0110w.9: 

"Senate Ml1 351 doee not operate to 

nuke urdawf’ul the paatioe OS jurveying by 

LLose who have not obtained a license. It, 

and the ihatute it anends, si?tply deny to 

tboee not having a license the gartlcular 

Trivileges grmted by the eat to lioensed 

land surveyore." 

Xe enclose herewith a copy of said opinion for 

your inforxatlon. 

Artioles 5288 - 5298, inoluaive, Section 2 oi Chapter 2, Title 86, Vernon'8 iugoteted Texas Civil Stetutee, deal 

with bounty 2urveyorm. These atatutes provUs for the sleotion, duties, eta. OS the County Surveyor but do not presarlbe 

any pextloular qualiSiaations for County Surveyors. Nor 60 

the etetuteo prescribe that the Colinty Durveyolsmuat be lltensed or nust be Uceneed land surveyors. 

Article 5299, Vernon.6 Annotated Texus Civil Statutes, grovidee: 

*All surveys oS public land shall be 

sade by authority of law and by a surveyor 

duly appointed, cleated or liaenseff, en8 

qualified." 

:%I eeeume Sron your lettar that there 1s a vaaenQg 

in the o:Slce of County Surveyor and the CorUnisaionera~ Court 

desires to Sill that vaoanoy by appointment. 

It is our opinion that-e County Surveyor 18 not 

req?iired to be lioensed nor is he required to be a licensed 

lend surveyor. 

Very truly youra 

ATTORNEY GZXRIIL OF TEXAS
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

MAY 21, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

Honorable J. Owen Forrester, United States District Judge for the Northern District of *

Georgia, sitting by designation.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 06-16017

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00499-CV-WS-B

BRENDA L. MORGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

NORTH MISSISSIPPI MEDICAL CENTER, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Alabama

_________________________

(May 21, 2007)

Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, HULL, Circuit Judge, and FORRESTER,*

District Judge.

PER CURIAM:
2

After review and oral argument, the Court affirms the grant of summary

judgment in favor of the Defendant-Appellee on all of the Plaintiff-Appellant’s

claims for the reasons outlined in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned

orders of October 12, 2006, and December 2, 2005.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. (the "Company"), that the Annual
Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition of the Company at the end of the period covered by the Report and the results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.

| |  | By:  /s/KENNETH H. TRAUBKenneth H. Traub
President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:
March 23, 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 American Bank Note
Holographics, Inc. and will be retained by American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks
#### James I. FINN v. STATE.

No. 23499.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 4, 1946.

Chris Dixie and King C. Haynie, both of Houston, for appellant.

A. C. Winborn, Cr. Dist. Atty., and E. T. Branch, Asst. Cr. Dist. Atty., both of Houston, and Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The conviction is for aggravated assault; the punishment, a fine of $25.00 and confinement in jail for thirty days.

This is a companion case to that of Bedford W. Pitts v. State, 197 S.W.2d 1012, this day decided.

The instant complaint is the same as in that case, and there held to be fatally defective.

For the reasons there stated, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the prosecution ordered dismissed.

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.

BEAUCHAMP, J., did not participate in this decision.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 217 (Wednesday, November 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28614]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2449]


Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in 
Rulemaking Proceedings

November 1, 2000.
    Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification have been filed in 
the Commission's rulemaking proceedings listed in this Public Notice 
and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of 
this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-A257, 445 
12th Street, SW, Washington, DC or may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to 
these petitions must be filed by November 14, 2000. See Section 
1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an 
opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing 
oppositions have expired.
    Subject: Amendment of Section 73.202(b) Table of Allotments, FM 
Broadcast Stations. (Rangely, Silverton and Ridgway, Colorado) (MM 
Docket No. 99-151, RM-9559, RM-9932).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.
    Subject: Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules Regarding 
Spread Spectrum Devices (ET Docket No. 99-231).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 1.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28614 Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
Order entered October 29, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00705-CR

BRENDA ISELA MONTOYA, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F11-22656-W

ORDER

The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s 

brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE