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

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-12-01108-CV

Style: Telicia Owens

v. Krista G. Handyside, M.D., Samuel J. Prater, M.D., Kenneth A. Totz, D.O., FACEP, and 

Memorial Hermann Hospital System d/b/a Memorial Hermann – Texas Medical Center

Date motion filed*: May 5, 2015

Type of motion: Motion for extension of time to file motion for rehearing and/or motion for en banc 

reconsideration

Party filing motion: Appellee

Document to be filed: Motion for rehearing and/or motion for en banc reconsideration

Is appeal accelerated? No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: May 8, 2015

Number of previous extensions granted: 0 Current Due date: May 8, 2015

Date Requested: June 22, 2015

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: June 22, 2015

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Judge's signature: __/s/ Terry Jennings__________________________________________

Panel consists of ____________________________________________

Date: May 7, 2015
EXHIBIT 34.1





ATTESTATION REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH


SERVICING CRITERIA FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES





REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the Board of Directors and Shareholders


Entergy New Orleans, LLC


New Orleans, Louisiana





We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria For Asset-Backed Securities, that Entergy New Orleans, LLC (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB applicable for Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding I, L.L.C.’s Senior Secured Storm Recovery Bonds (the “Securities”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017, excluding criteria in Items 1122(d)(1)(ii), 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(4)(iii), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(ix), 1122(d)(4)(x), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii), 1122(d)(4)(xiii), and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Securities. Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.





Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Securities, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.





In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017 for Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding I, L.L.C.’s Senior Secured Storm Recovery Bonds is fairly stated, in all material respects.





/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP





New Orleans, Louisiana


March 22, 2018
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11-3325

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Marrion Dotson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: May 14, 2012 Filed: May 22, 2012

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Marrion Dotson directly appeals after he pled guilty to kidnaping and firearm charges and the district court 1 imposed a within-Guidelines-range sentence. His counsel has moved to withdr aw, and has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), noting that Dotson’s plea agr eement contained an appeal waiver, and raising sentencing issues. Dotson has filed a pro se supplemental brief, raising issues related to the district cour t’s conduct at the change-of-pl ea hearing and related to his sentence.

1 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.We conclude that the appeal waiver in the plea agreement is enforceable as to Dotson’s pro se arguments challenging the di strict court’s conduct at the change-ofplea hearing. See United States v. Jennings , 662 F.3d 988, 990 (8th Cir. 2011) (appeal waiver is generally enforceable if appeal fa lls within scope of waiver, both waiver and plea agreement were entered into knowi ngly and voluntarily, and enforcement of waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice). Accordingly, we do not consider those arguments. We further conclude that the appeal wa iver is not enforceable with respect to the sentencing issues raised in the briefs, because those issues are not within the scope of the waiver. More specifi cally, the parties waived their rights to appeal sentencing issues on the condition, among others, thatthe court accept the Guidelines total offense level to which the parties had agreed. That cond ition was not met. However, after careful review, we concl ude that none of the sentencing issues raised in the briefs have merit. Dotson’s own admission of fact s abundantly supported the district court’s sentencing determinations, and the court adequately considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Stroud , 673 F.3d 854, 862 (8th Cir. 2012) (district court is not require d to recite § 3553(a) factors mechanically, but it must be clear that court considered them). Finally, having independently reviewed the record consistent with Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

- 2-
#### BLAYLARK v. STATE.

No. 25205.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 28, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

*808MORRISON, Judge.

Appellant was charged with the offensé of procuring. A jury being waived, the court found him guilty as charged and assessed his punishment at confinement in the county jail for three months and a fine of $200.00.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts and no bill of exception. All the proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment is affirmed.
MDAQMD Rule 1117 – Graphic Arts B-3

Final Staff Report, 01/21/10B-4 MDAQMD Rule 1117 – Graphic Arts

Final Staff Report, 01/21/10
#### BOOKER v. STATE.

No. 21792.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 10, 1941.

Shelbourne H. Glover, of Jefferson, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Assault with intent to murder without malice is the offense; the punishment, two years in the state penitentiary.

The sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction is challenged.

According to the testimony of the injured party, he was at a beer tavern, drinking beer and talking with appellant’s brother, when appellant, without saying a word, came up and began cutting him with a knife, inflicting some wounds about the face, nose and lip, as a result of which he bled rather freely. He was carried to a doctor, who dressed dhe wounds and sewed them up. The doctor testified that the wounds were “just local wounds,” and said that they appeared to have been made with a knife or some sharp instrument. The knife with which the assault was alleged to have been committed is not identified in this record. There is an absence of any proof as to the size or length of the blade. Notwithstanding the fact that the evidence shows that others were present in the tavern at the time of the occurrence, no witness testified to having seen the assault.

The State’s case, in so far as the appellant’s guilty connection is shown, is made to depend alone upon the testimony of the injured party. There is no testimony showing that any ill feeling existed between the parties, or motive or reason for the assault. Upon the question of prior relationship between the parties, the injured party testified:

“No sir I wasn’t mad at Wallace (appellant) that night, and I am not mad at him still. I don’t know whether Wallace was mad at my or not, he never said. No *539sir, there wasn’t a word spoken between me and Wallace that night.”

The appellant, testifying as a witness in his own behalf, denied that he cut the injured party and denied that he had a knife on that occasion.

Under these facts, there is an absence of proof showing that the instrument with which the assault was ■ committed was a deadly weapon. The injury inflicted was not shown to have been of a serious nature, but, to the contrary, according to the testimony of the doctor, consisted only of “local wounds.” There is an absence of any testimony showing express malice or prior ill feeling on the part of the appellant toward the injured party.

In the light of these facts, we are unable to reach the conclusion that the facts are sufficient to show appellant guilty of the offense of assault with intent to murder. See Branch’s P.C., § 1661; Lozano v. State, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 549, 137 S.W.2d 1031; Sofge v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 409, 111 S.W.2d 720; Jones v. State, 116 Tex.Cr.R. 30, 28 S.W.2d 146, and authorities cited and discussed therein.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

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.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 316 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 316

   Declaring the sense of Congress with respect to the use of racial 
     quotas and statistics in connection with death penalty cases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 7, 1994

     Mr. Franks of Connecticut submitted the following concurrent 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Declaring the sense of Congress with respect to the use of racial 
     quotas and statistics in connection with death penalty cases.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that racial quotas and statistics 
should not be used to determine whether or not to impose the penalty of 
death in criminal cases where such penalty is available, but each such 
determination should be made on the merits of the individual case at 
hand.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 12.4

                            KOLMAR LABORATORIES, INC.
                         FIXED CHARGE RATIO COMPUTATION
                                (GUARANTORS ONLY)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                            YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                            -----------------------
                                                              1998           1999
                                                            --------       --------
                                                            (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
<S>                                                         <C>            <C>
Income (loss) before taxes ..........................       $  2,063       $  3,609
Fixed charges reflected in income (loss) before taxes
   Interest expense .................................             80            349
   One third of rental expenses .....................            190            358
                                                            --------       --------
Total fixed charges .................................       $    270       $    707
                                                            --------       --------

Income (loss) before taxes plus fixed charges above .       $  2,333       $  4,316
                                                            ========       ========
Fixed charge ratio ..................................          8.64x          6.10x
</TABLE>
## Pr opo s e d R u l e : M a n d a t o r y Re p o r t i n g o f G e o l o g i c S e q u e s t r a t i o n

M ee ti n g D o c u m e n t a t i o n I n t e r a g e n c y M ee ti n g

– D i s c u ss I n t e r a g e n c y C o m m e n t s, J a nu a r y 26

, 2010

D at e S ta ff C o n ta ct I n fo r m a ti o n ( N am e , e m a i l

, p h o n e # ) N am e of O r g a n i z a ti o n ( A tta c h l i s t of al l a tt e n d ee s

n am e s a n d

e mail s i f
p o ss i b l e ) S u m ma r y o f D i s c u ss i o n ( e

. g

. , a p p l i c a b il it y , r e p o r t i n g

r e q u i r e m e n t s , e t c .) W r i tt e n C o mm e n t s P r ov i d e d ? D i d t h e y al s o

s u b mit t o D o c k e t ? D at e s e n t t o E PA CC D

1 / 21 Su z i e K

o cc h i

, K o cc h i

. s u z ann e @ e

pa

. gov 202

- 343

- 9387 A g e n c i e s

a tt e nd i ng : E P A O M B C E Q A c on

f e r e n ce c a ll w

a s h e l d t o d i s c u s s i n t e r

ag e n cy

c o mm e n t s on t h e g e o l og i c s e qu e s t r a ti o n p r op o s a l Y

e s 1 /

11 / 10
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 283 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 283

    Designating August 24, 1994, as ``Ukrainian Independence Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            August 16, 1994

Mr. Gutierrez submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
    Designating August 24, 1994, as ``Ukrainian Independence Day''.

Whereas Ukraine, a nation of 55,000,000 people and one of Europe's largest 
        countries, seeks political and economic support from the West and 
        especially the United States in fortifying its freedom;
Whereas the capitol of Ukraine, Kyiv, is a sister city of Chicago and benefits 
        from political and cultural exchange with the people of Chicago;
Whereas 3 years ago, on August 24, 1991, Ukraine declared itself independent 
        from the long colonial stranglehold of the Soviet Union and embarked on 
        the road to build a sovereign, democratic nation; and
Whereas many Americans of Ukrainian descent and others residing in the city of 
        Chicago wish to commemorate this third anniversary of a new era in the 
        life of Ukraine by promoting awareness of this historic event: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That August 24, 1994, is designated as ``Ukrainian Independence Day'' 
and the President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation 
calling upon the people of the United States to observe such a day with 
appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.
                                 <all>
```
#### Carl McCARTY, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 24081.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 1, 1949.

For former opinion, see 212 S.W.2d ISO.

Harry E. Kain, of Denison, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The same procedure is noted in this case as that in Tex.Cr., 220 S.W.2d 890, and the same order relative thereto is entered 1⁄8 this cause. .
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2832]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 55-32443-SP]


In the Matter of Michel A. Philippon (Denial of Senior Reactor 
Operator) License Application; Notice of Appointment of Adjudicatory 
Employee

    Commissioners: Richard A. Meserve, Chairman, Greta J. Dicus, 
Nils J. Diaz, Edward McGaffigan, Jr., Jeffrey S. Merrifield.

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.4, notice is hereby given that Mr. Richard 
Baldwin, a Commission employee in Region II, Division of Reactor 
Safety, Operator Licensing and Human Performance Branch, has been 
appointed as a Commission adjudicatory employee within the meaning of 
section 2.4, to advise the Commission regarding issues relating to the 
pending petition for review of the Presiding Officer's Initial 
Decision, LBP-99-44. Mr. Baldwin has not previously performed any 
investigative or litigating function in connection with this or any 
related proceeding. Until such time as a final decision is issued in 
this matter, interested persons outside the agency and agency employees 
performing investigative or litigating functions in this proceeding are 
required to observe the restrictions of 10 CFR 2.780 and 2.781 in their 
communications with Mr. Baldwin.
    It is so ordered.

    For the Commission.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of February, 2000.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 00-2832 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
|                                                            
|------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)              
|View History: Annual                                        
|View History: Annual                                        
|View History:                                               
|                                                            
|U.S. Purchased Steam Consumed at Refineries (Million Pounds)
|                                                            
|                                                            
|U.S. Purchased Steam Consumed at Refineries (Million Pounds)
|                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         |         |         |         |         | 27,776  | 21,388  | 25,825  | 29,800  | 29,210 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 30,954  | 46,476  | 31,412  | 31,925  | 33,026  | NA      | 36,445  | NA      | 31,233  | 45,684 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 50,472  | 55,775  | 59,149  | 61,078  | 64,547  | 63,591  | 70,769  | 99,022  | 98,769  | 98,671 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 128,981 | 112,610 | 121,359 | 128,748 | 130,505 | 128,339 | 123,533 | 125,046 | 116,204 | 117,797
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 115,048 | 98,401  | 96,657  | 93,768  |         |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 219 (Monday, November 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67715]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28953]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

[I.D. 110700B]

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce has submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for 
collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Fisheries Capacity Reduction Program Advanced Referenda and 
Other Requirements.
    Form Number(s): None.
    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0413.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 3,200.
    Number of Respondents: 800.
    Average Hours Per Response: 4 hours.
    Needs and Uses: NOAA conducts a program to reduce excess fishing 
capacity by paying fishermen to (1) surrender their fishing permits or 
(2) both surrender their permits and either scrap their vessels or 
restrict vessel titles to prevent fishing. Separately approved 
requirements for the program included a referendum to be held at a 
certain point in the process. Comments on the proposed rule indicated 
that additional referenda may be needed. NOAA also decided that certain 
requirements that were considered implicitly part of previous 
requirements need to be made explicit. The submission to OMB covers the 
additional referenda and those other requirements.
    Affected Public: Business and other for-profit organizations, 
individuals.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Forms Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-3129, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
[email protected]).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: November 3, 2000.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-28953; Filed 11-9-00; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
```