alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-40907

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RODERRETTE DEWRAYNE MCCLURE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:11-CR-38-1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Roderrette Dewrayne

McClure has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). McClure has filed a response. We have reviewed

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well

as McClure’s response. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 10, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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.

 Case: 12-40907 Document: 00512466992 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2013
No. 12-40907

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 12-40907 Document: 00512466992 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2013
Record of Conversation:

February 4, 2016

The FAA had a discussion with BNSF and BNSF’s counsel regarding the Request for Information regarding

their petition for exemption (FAA‐2014‐0704). Specifically, the petitioner sought to clarify how they

intend to operate safety regarding operations within visual line of sight of the PIC/VO, operations in

VMC conditions, and operations within 500 feet within non‐participating individuals and structures. The

petitioner will formally respond to the Request for Information in a separate filing.
Confidential Business Information received from Pactiv Building 

Products on September 30, 2014.

For more information, please contact Margaret Sheppard by 

phone at 202-343-9163 or by email at 

sheppard.margaret@epa.gov.
# FILED July 26, 1999 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF CR IMINAL A PPEALS OF TENN ESSEE AT NASHVILLE JAMES SHIELDS, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 01C

01-9809-CR-00383 Appellant, ) ) DAVIDSON COUNTY VS. ) (No. 98-C -222 0 Bel ow) ) STATE OF TENN ESSEE, ) The Hon. J. Randall Wy att, Jr. ) Appellee. ) (Dismissal of HabeasCorpus Petition) ) AFFIRMED PU RSUANT TO R ULE 20

O R D E R
This matter is before the Court upon the state's motion to affirm the judgment of the trial court pursuant to Rule 20, Rules of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appe als. After reviewing the s

tate’s motion, theappellant’s brief, and the rec ord on appeal, the Court finds that this is an appropri ate matter for affirmance under Rule 20.

The petitioner is appealing the trial court's dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his petition, the petiti oner alleged that two prior convictions were void and improperly used to enhance his sentence in a later convic tion. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition because no record of the named convictions or how they were used to enhance his subsequent conv iction was attached to the petition, nor was a satisfactory reason given for its absence as mandated by T.C.A. § 29-21-10 7(b)(2).

T.C.A. § 29-21-107(b)(2) prov ides that if the petitioner in a peti tion for writ of habeas corpus is restrained of his liberty "by virtue of any le gal p rocess, a copy thereof shall be annexed, or a satisfactory reason given for its absence." This provision of the statute is "mandatory and the failure to comply with same may be gro unds for dismissing the petition." State ex rel. Wood v. Johnson , 216 Tenn. 531, 534, 393 S.W.2d 135, 136 (Tenn. 1965); see State ex rel. Kuntz v . Bomar , 214 Tenn. 500, 503, 381 S.W.2d 290, 291 (Tenn. 1964). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in dismissing t he petition.

In addition, in his appellate brief, the petitioner cont ends that he received ineffe ctive assistance of counsel. A cl aim of ineffective counsel may not be litigated in a-2-

habeas corpus proceeding. Passarella v. State , 891 S.W.2d 619, 628 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). Moreover, this Cour t has appellate jurisdiction only. T.C.A. § 16-5-108( a). Issues not raised in the petition c annot be raised for the first time on appeal. ‘
Based on the reasons discussed in this order, this Court concludes that the state’s motion to affirm the judgment should be granted.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the state’s motion to affirm th e judgmentpursuan t to Rule 20 is granted. The jud gment of the trial court is hereby affirmed. The petitioner being indi gent, costs of this appeal ar e taxed to the state.

_____________________________ THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE CONCUR:

_____________________________ DAVID H. WELLES, JUDGE

_____________________________ JERRY L. SMITH, JUD GE
III

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 248

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

AUGUST 8, 1994

Received and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for the printing of eulogies, encomiums, and funeral services for the late President of the United States,

Richard M. Nixon.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the eulogies and encomiums for the late

3 President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, as ex4 pressed in the House of Representatives and the Senate,

5 together with the text of the funeral services for the late

6 President in Yorba Linda, California, shall be printed as

7 a House document, with illustrations and suitable binding.

8 The document shall be prepared under the direction of the

9 Joint Committee on Printing.

10 SEC. 2. In addition to the usual number, there shall

11 be printed the lesser of—
2

HCON 248 RFS

1 (1) 32,500 copies of the document, of which

2 22,150 copies shall be for the use of the House of

3 Representatives and 10,350 copies shall be for the

4 use of the Senate; or

5 (2) such number of copies of the document as

6 does not exceed a total production and printing cost

7 of $500,000, with distribution to be allocated in the

8 same proportion as described in paragraph (1).

Passed the House of Representatives August 3,

1994.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 22, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, November 22, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A18D0172. ERIC K. HUFFMAN v. LINDA HUFFMAN.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 2015CV266173
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 247

Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the Nagorno Karabagh

conflict.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 11, 1994

Mr. BILBRAY (for himself, Mr. LEHMAN, Mr. TORRES, Mr. BONIOR, and Mr.

HOYER) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress with respect to the

Nagorno Karabagh conflict.

Whereas the Republic of Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabagh

have been engaged in armed conflict since 1988 over the

disputed Armenian-majority enclave of Nagorno

Karabagh;

Whereas the Nagorno Karabagh conflict has resulted in more

than 1,000,000 international refugees and the deaths of

more than 15,000 people;

Whereas Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabagh, and Armenia have

stated their desire to reach a negotiated settlement to the

Nagorno Karabagh dispute; and

Whereas the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe has put forth several proposals to end the hostilities
2

HCON 247 IH

over Nagorno Karabagh and bring a lasting and equitable peace to the region: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) both the Republic of Azerbaijan and

4 Nagorno Karabagh should immediately cease all hos5 tilities and begin peace negotiations under the

6 framework established by the Commission on Secu7 rity and Cooperation in Europe;

8 (2) the parties to the conflict should, simulta9 neously, lift all blockades in the region; and

10 (3) the President should take an active role in

11 promoting peace and in monitoring the human

12 rights situation in the region.

Æ
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00507

- CR

LARRY WILLIAM GALLEM ORE APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 213TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 

### AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s “ Motion To Withdraw Appeal Pursuant To

Rule 42.2

. ” The motion complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate

p rocedure. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a). No decision of this court having been

delivered before we received this motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 43.2(f).

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 PER CURIAM

PANEL: DAUPHINOT, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: June 20 , 2013
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 25623.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 9, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Henry Wade, Crim. Dist. Atty., Charles S. Potts, Asst. Crim. Dist. Atty., Dallas, George P. Blackburn, 'State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant appeals from a death penalty upon his conviction for murder.

The offense was committed in the City of Dallas where indictment was returned and the case was subsequently transferred to Brown County for trial.

The facts of the case will sustain the jury’s verdict and we 'find but one bill of exception in the record. The deceased was a policeman in the performance of his duty in attempting to arrest appellant, together with others, at the time he was shot to death. The state, after having proved the death of Sides as the result of a gun shot wound, placed his mother on the stand who testified that her son was dead. Objection was made on the ground that the mother is a deaf mute and had to testify through an interpreter. The complaint is that her presence in court and on the witness stand, speaking through an interpreter, was inflammatory and highly prejudicial to the rights of the defendant.

While such is the grounds of objection, we are not given a picture of the situation which in the least will indicate the correctness of such objection. We are called upon, in the state of the bill, to reach this conclusion by taking judicial knowledge that such would result from the appearance of the mother and the fact that she is a deaf mute. We know of no basis for this conclusion.

No other question is presented for our consideration and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:FAA - 2011 - 0264 X - Ref AD 2008 - 03 - 04
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          59,532
<SECURITIES>                                    41,903
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,880
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,600
<INVENTORY>                                        388
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               180,930
<PP&E>                                          53,358
<DEPRECIATION>                                  26,976
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 314,171
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           71,427
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       234,421
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,501
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   314,171
<SALES>                                        110,498
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               110,498
<CGS>                                           18,043
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  125,004
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (3,260)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (29,289)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,301)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,988)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,988)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.53)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.53)


</TABLE>
Record of Ex Parte Contacts

Docket No. FAA
- 2011
- 0731 Directorate Identifier: 2010
- NE
- 39
- AD With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, G AMA, etc)? (You might need to submit a separate record to the Rules Docket. The AD Manual defines “ Ex Parte Contacts .”) ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE RESPONSE A 

### irline Transport Association, 202.626.4036 Jo 

### e White 11/17/10 Concur.

Other/Additional Information:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Gary Machetta v. Arlene Machetta

Appellate case number: 01

- 17

- 00415

- CV

Trial court case number: 2007

- 50042

Trial court: 310th District Court of Harris County

On October 11, 2017, a ppellant Gary Machetta filed a document titled “Notification to Court Clerk Regarding Defect or Inaccuracy in Clerks Record Pursuant to TRAP 34.5

- D.” Within this “Notification,” appellant stated: “ This letter is a request for the Appe llate Court

Clerk to review the submitted Clerk’s Record and to request that the Trial Court Clerk correct the

Clerk’s Record where defective or inaccurate are found. Plaintiff further asks that he be informed whether or not this request will trigger an ad ministrative resetting of case schedules, including

due dates for briefs that cannot be completed without the completed Clerk’s Record. ” The filing then proceeded to identify a list of “required or requested items that appear to be missing or damaged.”

On November 9, 2017, appellant filed another document titled “Notice to Suspend Due Date for Brief and to Rule on Notice to Correct Clerk’s Record.” Appellant characterized this

“Notice” as an “ unopposed request to reset deadline for Appellant’s brief and to rule on Appellant’s Notice of Deficient Clerk’s Record filed on October 11, 2017 .”

Although appellant is representing himself in this appeal, he must follow the rules of procedure. To request relief from the court, appellant must file a motion. See general ly T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 10 (motions in the appellate courts).

To the extent appellant’s October 11 “Notification” and November 9 “Notice” request ed

relief from th is court other than the extension of time to file a brief , th ose motion s are DENIED. To the extent appellant wants to supplement the clerk’s record or suggest defects or inaccuracies

in the clerk’s record , he must direct those requests to the trial court clerk pursuant to T EX

. R.

A PP

. P . 34.5(c)(1) , (d)

. Appellant’s January 4, 20 18 motion to extend time to file a brief is GRANTED. The new deadline is February 5, 2018. The appellant’s brief was originally due on September 11, 2017. To the extent that appellant may seek further extensions based on his objections to the clerk’s

recor d in its current form, any future motion to extend time must detail the steps the appellanthas taken to resolve these issues with the trial court clerk and the current status of any pending

requests. Otherwise, further motions to extend time will be disfa vored.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 9, 2018
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: November 10, 2014

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Erika Wilson, EPA

SUBJECT: November 10, 2014 Meeting Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing 

Power Plants

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality staff 

on November 10, 2014 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The 

Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality

Dick Pedersen DEQ, Director

Colin McConnaha DEQ

US EPA

Janet McCabe Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)

Joe Goffman Senior Counsel to the Assistant Administrator, OAR

Reid Harvey Director, Clean Air Markets Division, Office of Atmospheric 

Programs (OAP)

Kevin Culligan Associate Director, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)

Misha Adamantiades OAP, EPA

Matt Clouse OAP, EPA

Beth Conlin OAP, EPA

Robyn DeYoung OAP, EPA
Chris Sherry OAP, EPA

Lora Strine OAQPS, EPA

Erika Wilson OAP, EPA

Dennis McLerran Regional Administrator, Region 10

Kate Kelly Director, Office or Air, Waste and Toxics

Robert Drake Region 10, EPA

Madonna Narvaez Region 10, EPA
#### GARZA v. STATE.

No. 25613.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 9, 1952.

Pedigo & Wade and Faires P. Wade, all of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is murder; the punishment, three years.

This appeal was perfected following the effective date of Articles 759a and 760c, Vernon’s Annotated Code of Criminal Procedure.

There are no 'formal bills of exception and no index of bills of exception contained in the question and answer statement of facts. The only matter submitted for our review is the refusal of the court to grant a new trial because of alleged jury misconduct.

Because of our disposition of the case, a recitation of the facts will not be necessary further, than to say that on the trial appellant testified, admitting the shooting but claiming that the pistol was discharged accidentally while he was engaged in beating deceased off of him with the weapon.

The amended motion for new trial alleged that the jury received new evidence during their deliberations prior to reaching a verdict from the following statements made by their foreman, Yates, to wit:

1. That he (Yates) was an amateur gunsmith, that the pistol in evidence would require a trigger pull of 40 pounds pres- • sure and could not have been discharged accidentally as testified to by appellant.

2. That he (Yates) had once had an experience similar to the one .related by appellant, but that he had called the police instead of personally intervening, as had appellant; and, in his opinion, appellant should have pursued the same course of action.

3. That he (Yates) had had experience as a peace officer and that he knew that a .drunk man could be easily subdueo without the necessity of shooting him.

To this motion were attached the affidavits of two jurors, each of which supported the first allegation above, reciting that such statement was made by the foreman during their deliberations and prior to reaching a verdict.

The trial court, in overruling the motion for new trial, certified as follows : “and although it appears that the statements alleged to have been made by Juror Yates were made *as alleged,*it is nevertheless found by the court that such state*818ments were 'harmless and that such motion, should be overruled”.

Here, we have a case where new evidence o'f a material nature is received by the jury during’ their deliberations and before reaching a verdict, which requires a reversal. Jones v. State, 436 Tex.Cr.R. 30, 123 S.W.2d 656, and cases cited. Adaire v. State, 123 Tex.Cr.R. 60S, 60 S.W.2d 781, presents a similar fact situation to the case at bar.

For the errors shown, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-12-00620- CR
Henry G onzales, Jr., Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 299 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -DC- 12- 9040 23, H ONO RAB LE KAREN SAGE, JUDGE P RESIDING
O R D E R
P ER CURIAM

Appellant’s br ief on a

ppeal wa s due on August 19, 2013. O n August 19, appellant fi l ed h is fifth motion for extension of time to file his brief, asking for an additional t en d ay s . We g rant the motion, extending t h e d ea d l i n e to August 29, 2013, but caution counsel that failure to file the brief by August 29 will result in the ref err al of this case to the trial co u rt fo r a hear ing under r ule 38.8(b) of

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedur e. I t is ordere d on Aug ust 23, 2013.

Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pemberton a nd Field Do Not Publish
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 21, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00017

- CV

Cynthia Ann TURNER

, Appellant

v.

Troy Adam TURNER

, Appellee

From the County Court At Law No 1, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012CVG

- 002200

- C1 Honorable Alvino (Ben) Morales, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The clerk’s record was due January 8, 2014, but it was not filed. On January 17, the Webb County District C lerk filed a notification of late record stating the clerk’s record was not filed because appellant has not paid or made arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee to prepare the record and appellant is not entitled to the record without paying the fee.

We or der appellant Cynthia Ann Turner to provide written proof to this court on or

before January 31, 2014 that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements satisfactory to the clerk have been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) a ppellant is entitled to the clerk’s record without prepayment of the clerk’s fee. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1 and 35.3(a). If appellant fails to file such proof within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution.

See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b).

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 21st day of January, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court