alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ex parte CHERRY.

No. 25171.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 20, 1950.

None on appeal for appellant.

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

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is an extradition case.

Upon the requisition of the Governor of the State of Georgia, the Governor of this State issued his -executive warrant which, upon its face, shows that the appellant stands charged by “accusation” in the State of Georgia.

The requisition of the Governor of the State of Georgia upon which the Governor of this State relied and acted is not before us. The record does not reflect, therefore, the nature of the “accusation” against the appellant in the demanding State, whether by indictment, affidavit, or information.

It is now deemed axiomatic that a requisition may issue only when the accused stands charged in the demanding State by indictment, affidavit, or complaint. A requisition cannot rest upon a charge by information. Ex parte Bourland, 132 Tex. Cr.R. 434, 105 S.W.2d 251.

The term, “accusation,” is defined by statute of this State as “ * * * a charge made in a lawful manner against any person that he has been guilty of some offense which subjects him to prosecution in the name of the State. One is said to be ‘accused’ of an offense from the time that any ‘criminal action’ shall have been commenced against him.” Art. 343, P.C.

There being nothing showing to the contrary, it will be presumed that the laws of the State of Georgia defining the term, “accusation,” are the same as those of this State. It is appparent, therefore, that the term, “accusation,” includes a charge by information.

The warrant of the Governor of this State, in fact the record in its entirety, *1012not affirmatively reflecting that the appellant is charged in the demanding State by indictment or affidavit, we are constrained to conclude that the warrant of extradition is insufficient and that appellant should be discharged from custody or restraint thereunder.

It follows that the order of the Judge of the 'Criminal District Court of Dallas County remanding appellant to the custody of the arresting officers is reversed, and appellant is ordered discharged from custody.

Opinion approved by the court.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 68995]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29205]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 1981-010-Wisconsin]


Oconto Electric Cooperative; Notice of Availability of Draft 
Environmental Assessment

November 8, 2000.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license for 
the existing Stiles Hydroelectric Project, located on the Oconto River, 
in the township of Stiles, Oconto County, Wisconsin, and has prepared a 
draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. In the draft EA, 
the Commission staff has analyzed the potential environmental effects 
of the project and has concluded that the approval of the project, with 
appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major 
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment.
    Copies of the draft EA are available for review in the Public 
Reference Branch, Room 2-A, of the Commission's offices at 888 First 
Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. The draft EA may also be viewed on 
the internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm. Please call 
(202) 208-2222 for assistance.
    Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this 
notice and should be addressed to David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 
20426. Please affix ``Stiles Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 
1981-010'' to all comments. For further information, please contact 
Patti Leppert at (202) 219-2767. 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. 00-29205 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
MEMORANDUM

To: The Record 

From: William (Bill) J. Kline 

Subject: Methodology Used to Determine 2007 TRI On-Site Releases of CERCLA Hazardous 

Substances for NPL-Identified Industrial Sectors 

In support of the notice: Identification of Additional Classes of Facilities for Development of 

Financial Responsibility Requirements under CERCLA Section 108(b), EPA obtained the most 

recent list (2007) of CERCLA hazardous substances from the Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry (ATSDR) (see http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/cercla/07list.html). The 2007 Priority 

List of Hazardous Substances contains 275 substances that are most commonly found at facilities 

on the NPL which have been determined to be of greatest concern to public health at or around 

these sites due to their know or suspected toxicity and the potential for human exposure. 

EPA cross-linked the 2007 Priority List of Hazardous Substances with the list of chemicals that 

are required to be reported under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). This analysis identified 

that only 149 of the total 275 Priority List Hazardous Substances are reported to TRI. The 

attached table shows the CERCLA Hazardous Substances that EPA identified as being reported 

to TRI. Using the list of Hazardous Substances that are reported to TRI, EPA then queried the 

data available via the TRI tool TRI.net (see http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridotnet/index.html) to 

determine the quantities of hazardous substances that facilities in designated North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes reported to TRI for the 2007 reporting year. For 

the purposes of this notice, EPA determined the quantity of hazardous substances reported to 

TRI as onsite releases, which include air emissions, surface water discharges, and land placement 

(Subtitle C landfills/surface impoundments, UIC wells, and non-Subtitle C landfills/surface 

impoundments, land treatment, and other disposal). 

Attachment
#### In the Matter of Phyllis P. Keller, Deceased. Muriel Parks, as Administratrix of the Estate of Phyllis P. Keller, Deceased, Respondent; John P. Keller, as Executor of William J. Keller, Deceased, Appellant, et al., Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to SCPA 2103, *inter alia,*to discover certain personal property allegedly withheld from the estate of Phyllis P. Keller, John Phillip Keller, as executor of the estate of William J. Keller, appeals from an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County (Laurino, S.), entered July 12, 1989, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the proceeding.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the motion is granted, and the proceeding is dismissed.

*450We agree with the appellant’s contention that the proceeding must be dismissed on the ground that there is a prior action pending for the same relief.

In this proceeding, the petitioner, as administratrix of the estate of Phyllis Keller, sought the discovery, *inter alia,*of certain United States Treasury Securities allegedly withheld from that estate by the estate of William Keller. The decedents were brother and sister, and the subject property was allegedly originally owned by Phyllis Keller, but was apparently transferred to both Phyllis and William as joint owners with rights of survivorship. Phyllis predeceased William by about four months. Thereafter, Phyllis Keller’s estate filed a "claim” pursuant to SCPA 1810 against William Keller’s estate concerning the subject property, in the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County, which has jurisdiction over William’s estate. The claim filed in Nassau County, concededly, concerns the same personal property as does the instant proceeding for discovery brought in Queens County. In these circumstances, the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, should have dismissed the proceeding on the ground that there was a prior action pending for the same relief in Nassau County *(cf., Matter of Goldfarb,*17 Misc 2d 976).

We have considered the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and Ritter, JJ., concur.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 3, 2024 

S 

In the 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-01211-CV 

IN THE INTEREST OF B.R., S.R. AND S.R., CHILDREN 

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-12-11159 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Carlyle 

Opinion by Justice Carlyle 

By motion filed April 18, 2024, appellant asks the Court to either dismiss this 

appeal or affirm the trial court’s judgment and grant appellant judgment for costs. 

We grant the motion to the extent we dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(1). 

231211F.P05 

 

/Cory L. Carlyle/

CORY L. CARLYLE 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IN THE INTEREST OF B.R., S.R. 

AND S.R., CHILDREN 

No. 05-23-01211-CV 

 On Appeal from the 256th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-12-11159. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle, 

Justices Partida-Kipness and 

Pedersen, III participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. 

Judgment entered May 3, 2024.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

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.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

November 20, 2012

h1113

Order 

November 20, 2012

145713

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145713

COA: 310316

Saginaw CC: 10-034913-FC

DAMON LAMONT POINDEXTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 11, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ORDER STRIKING AND UNFILING DOCUMENT(S)

The Court has independently determined that the document(s) below should be stricken and unfiled. Accordingly, it is ordered 

that the document(s) is/are stricken from the record of this case, and the Clerk is directed to note on the docket that the 

document(s) has/have been unfiled.

DATE U.S. DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY

Judge:

Case Number: Style:

Date:

*******************

1. A civil cover sheet must be filed with the complaint. See LR 3.1(a) or LR 3.2(c).

2. The document(s) must be in proper form. See LR 10.1 or LCrR 49.3.

3. The signature of the attorney of record, which includes a party proceeding pro se, is required on each

A(n) has been filed by

 and is considered deficient in the area(s) noted below:

document filed. See FED. R. Civ. P. 11(a), FED. R. Crim. P. 49(d), LR 11.1(b), or LCrR 49.5(b).

5. Each separate document contained therein must be identified. See LR 5.1(c) or LCrR 49.2(c).

4. A completed certificate of service is required. See FED. R. Civ. P. 5(d) or FED. R. Crim. P. 49(d).

6. The motion RUUHVSRQVHmust include:

brief in support of motion. See LR 7.1(d), LR 56.5(a), or LCrR 47.1(d).

certificate of conference or inability to confer. See LR 7.1(b) or LCrR 47.1(b).

proposed order. See LR 7.1(c) or LCrR 47.1(c).

documentary or non-documentary evidence in a separate appendix. See LR 7.1(i) or LR 56.6.

a.

b.

c.

d.

See LR 15.1(a) and (b). If the motion for leave to amend is filed on paper, the motion must be

accompanied by an original and second copy of the proposed amended pleading that is neither attached to the

motion nor made an exhibit to the motion. See LR 15.1(a).

7. A motion for leave to amend must have a copy of the proposed amended pleading attached as an exhibit.

8. A motion for continuance of a trial setting must be signed by the party as well as by the attorney of record.

See LR 40.1.

10. Additional copies are required. See LR 5.1(b) or LCrR 49.2(b).

9. An attorney seeking pro hac vice admission must apply for admission on an approved form and pay the

11. The attorney filing the pleading is not admitted to practice in this district. See LR 83.7 or LCrR 57.7.

applicable fee. See LR 83.9(b) or LCrR 57.9(b).

12. The document requires a separately signed certificate of interested persons. See LR 3.1(c), LR 3.2(e),

13. Other:

LR 7.4, LR 81.1 (a)(3)(D), or LR 81.2.

8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW-XGJH

U.S. DISTRICT/MAGISTRAT

February 7, 2024 

Means 2/5/2024

4:22-CV-430-Y Varga v. APFA, et al.

Sealed Motion for Sanctions (doc. 186)

Plaintiff

✔

Documents may only be filed under seal per statute, rule, or with leave of Court. See LR 79.3. The "order 

dated 12/26/2024" Plaintiff cites as permitting filing under seal does not so permit. See doc. 187.

Case 4:22-cv-00430-Y Document 190 Filed 02/07/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 5907
----

|   | WELLS FARGO BANK, National Association |                     |
|--------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------|
|   |                                   |                     |   |
|   | By:                                    | /s/ Bruce Wandersee |   |
|   |                                   | Bruce Wandersee          |   |
|   | Title:                                 | Senior Vice President    |   |
|   | Dated:                                 | April 21, 2017           |   |

----

| March ABS Platform Transactions            |
|--------------------------------------------|
| Nissan Auto Receivables 2014-B Owner Trust |
| Nissan Auto Receivables 2015-A Owner Trust |

----
#### AGUILLAR v. STATE.

No. 26047.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 19, 1952.

*709No attorney on appeal.

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

WOODLEY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $100.

The record contains no statement of facts nor hills of exception, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 218 (Thursday, November 9, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 67377]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28818]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration for Children and Families


Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation; Grant to the 
National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy

AGENCY: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, ACF, DHHS.

ACTION: Award announcement.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that a noncompetitive grant award is 
being made to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy to 
develop a fifty-state survey of teen pregnancy prevention. This survey 
will also include three to four case studies of individual state 
efforts.
    This 17-month project is being funded noncompetitively, because it 
is expected to provide valuable information useful to this Department 
and other practitioners regarding progress and state/community efforts 
to prevent teen pregnancy. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen 
Pregnancy is uniquely qualified to conduct the study because of its 
considerable experience and access to resources. The total cost of the 
project is $150,496.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancye Campbell, Office of Planning, 
Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, 370 
L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Phone: 202-401-5760.

    Dated: November 2, 2000.
Howard Rolston,
Director, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation.
[FR Doc. 00-28818 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4184-01-M
III

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 81

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 6 (legislative day, APRIL 19), 1993

Received

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the 1993 Special Olympics Torch Relay to be

run through the Capitol Grounds.

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring),

3 SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF RUNNING OF SPECIAL

4 OLYMPICS TORCH RELAY THROUGH CAPITOL

5 GROUNDS.

6 On May 27, 1993, or on such other date as the

7 Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Presi8 dent pro tempore of the Senate may designate jointly, the

9 1993 Special Olympics Torch Relay may be run through

10 the Capitol Grounds, as part of the journey of the Special

11 Olympics torch to the District of Columbia Special Olym12 pics summer games at Gallaudet University in the District

13 of Columbia.
2

•HCON 81 RDS

1 SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

2 The Capitol Police Board shall take such action as

3 may be necessary to carry out section 1.

4 SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARA5 TIONS.

6 The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions

7 for physical preparations for the event authorized by

8 section 1.

Passed the House of Representatives May 4, 1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
Case 2:22-cr-00059-Z-BR Document 41 Filed 05/04/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 96
Case 2:22-cr-00059-Z-BR Document 41 Filed 05/04/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 97
Case 2:22-cr-00059-Z-BR Document 41 Filed 05/04/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 98
|                                                                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                             
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                               
|View History: Annual                                                                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                                         
|View History:                                                                                                
|                                                                                                             
|No chart available.                                                                                          
|No chart available.                                                                                          
|                                                                                                             
|                                                                                                             
|North Dakota Refinery Vacuum Distillation Downstream Charge Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                                             

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership (the Operating Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Terry L. Stevens, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Highwoods Properties, Inc., general partner of the Operating
Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Operating Partnership.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                 
|-----------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ TERRY L. STEVENS                                             
|Terry L. Stevens                                                 
|Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner
|November 29, 2006
<page>
EXHIBIT 32.02




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




In connection with the Quarterly Report of Morgan Stanley
Diversified Futures Fund L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Lee
Horwitz, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation, the general partner of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:
(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Partnership.









By:  /s/Lee Horwitz

Name:	   Lee Horwitz
Title	:  Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management Corporation,
		   the general partner of the Partnership

Date:	   November 14, 2007