alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-08-00226-CR

______________________________

JARRARD MCGARY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 5th Judicial District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 96-F-377-5

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley
See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 1

2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jarrard McGary, pro se appellant, has filed with this Court a motion to dismiss his appeal

from the denial of his request for post-conviction DNA testing.

McGary's attorney filed an Anders brief March 23, 2009, and simultaneously filed his 1

motion to withdraw and advised McGary of his right to review the record and to file a pro se

response.

McGary has requested, and been granted, three extensions of time by this Court to file his

pro se response, stating in his requests for extensions that he has not received the full record from

the district clerk. We have contacted the district clerk, who has assured us that she has sent

everything she has to McGary. According to the district clerk, the last portion of the record McGary

is evidently requesting does not belong to the district clerk, but belongs to McGary's trial counsel.

It also appears that this record is not of the DNA hearing, but of his underlying 1997 trial for murder.

This Court, and the district clerk, having done all we can to accommodate McGary's requests

for the record, and McGary now having requested to dismiss his appeal, we grant the motion.
3

We dismiss the appeal.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: September 9, 2009

Date Decided: September 10, 2009

Do Not Publish
Agenda – May 2014 Refunding 

Treasury Dealer Meetings – April 24-April 25, 2014 

Dealer ___________________ 

To allow more time for discussion, please e-mail your responses prior to 12:00 PM on Monday, April 21, 2014 to 

Debt.Management@treasury.gov and NY.QTR@ny.frb.org. Even if you are not scheduled to meet with Treasury 

officials this quarter, your responses are still appreciated. 

I. Marketable Borrowing Estimates 

 Central 

Estimate 

Range that would not 

surprise you 

 Low/High 

 April-June 2014 / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

 July-September 2014 / 

 Ending Cash Balance / 

 FY 2014 Total Net Marketable Borrowing 

 FY 2015 Total Net Marketable Borrowing / 

 FY 2016 Total Net Marketable Borrowing / 

 

II. Budget Deficit and Growth Estimates 

 FY 2014 / 

 FY 2015 / 

 FY 2016 / 

 Real GDP(4Q/4Q % Chg) CY2014 

 Real GDP(4Q/4Q % Chg) CY2015 

 Nominal GDP(4Q/4Q % Chg) CY2014 

 Nominal GDP(4Q/4Q % Chg) CY2015 

 

III. Quarterly Note and Bond Issuance Estimates 

 3-year note (May/June/July) / / / / - / / 

 10-year note (May) / 

 10-year note reopening (June/July) / / - / 

 30-year bond (May) / 

 30-year bond reopening (June/July) / / 

 2-year note (May/June/July) / / / / - / / 

 5-year note (May/June/July) / / / / - / / 

 7-year note (May/June/July) / / / / - / / 

 10-year TIPS reopening (May) 

 30-year TIPS reopening(June) 

 10-year TIPS(July) 

 2-year FRN reopening (May/June) 

 2-year FRN (July) 

 

IV. Bill Issuance Estimates 

 52-week bill size (May/June/July) / / / / - / / 

 Total change in bills outstanding 5/14-7/14 / 

 Total change in bills outstanding FY 2014 / 

 CMB issuance May ‘14 – July ‘14 (size/date) / / / / 

Discussion Topics 

1. Please discuss your latest economic and fiscal forecasts for FY2014 and FY2015. Is the current auction schedule 

well-suited to meet Treasury’s expected financing needs? What adjustments, if any, would you recommend? 

2. Treasury has conducted 3 floating rate note security auctions since January 2014. Please comment on the supply 

and demand dynamics for this new product in the primary, secondary, and financing markets. 

3. To what extent do the re-openings of 10-year notes and 30-year bonds contribute to liquidity in those securities? 

Should Treasury consider modifying the auction calendar such that there were monthly new issues?
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Airspace Docket No. 2000-ASW-17]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

# SUMMARY:

This notice confirms the effective date of a direct final rule which revises the Class E Airspace at Fayetteville, AR.

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

The direct final rule published at 65 FR 54953 is effective 0901 UTC, November 30, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donald J. Day, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 817-222-5593.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on September 12, 2000, (65 FR 54953). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a noncontroversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on November 30, 2000. No adverse comments were received, and, thus, this action confirms that this direct final rule will be effective on that date.                

Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 27, 2000.

Robert N. Stevens,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region.

[FR Doc. 00-28292 Filed 11-2-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 DALLAS DIVISION 

MICHAEL LAYNE ODOM, ) 

 ID # 154143, ) 

Petitioner, ) 

vs. ) No. 3:22-CV-2098-D 

 ) 

439TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) 

COURT, et al., ) 

Respondents. ) 

ORDER

After reviewing all relevant matters of record in this case, including the October 25, 2022 

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and the 

November 8, 2022 objections thereto, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court is of the 

opinion that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and they are adopted 

as the findings and conclusions of the court. 

For the reasons stated in the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United 

States Magistrate Judge, by separate judgment, any habeas claims in the Petition for a Writ of 

Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, received on August 29, 2022, are dismissed for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies, and any civil claims are dismissed without prejudice to seeking 

relief in Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1934-B. The (Emergency) Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment received on October 4, 2022 is denied. 

A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F. 424, 425 (5th Cir. 2005). If petitioner files a notice 

of appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma 

 

Case 3:22-cv-02098-D-BH Document 22 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 113
pauperis and a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account. 

SO ORDERED. 

November 21, 2022. 

 

SIDNEY A. FITZWATER 

 SENIOR JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-02098-D-BH Document 22 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 114
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ERIC JACKSON ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v. No. 4:22-cv-825-P

ALEJANDRO N. MAYORKAS, IN HIS 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY

OF HOMELAND SECURITY, ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER

On September 19, 2022, the Court ordered the Parties to submit a 

Joint Report containing proposed deadlines regarding Plaintiffs’

Motions for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Counsel, and 

Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 11. Having reviewed the Parties Joint 

Report (ECF No. 17), the Court ORDERS that Defendants’ Opposition 

to Plaintiffs’ Motions for Class Certification, Appointment of Class 

Counsel, and Preliminary Injunction shall be filed on or before October

7, 2022, and Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants Opposition shall be filed on 

or before October 14, 2022.

SO ORDERED on this 29th day of September 2022.

Mark T. Pittman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00825-P Document 24 Filed 09/29/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 778
AMENDMENT NO. 2
                           SMITHWAY MOTOR XPRESS CORP.
                              INCENTIVE STOCK PLAN

     This  Amendment No. 2 to the Smithway  Motor Xpress Corp.  Incentive  Stock
Plan (the "Amendment"), is made pursuant to Section 6.4.b. of the Smithway Motor
Xpress Corp.  Incentive  Stock Plan (the  "Plan").  All terms in this  Amendment
shall have the meaning ascribed in the Plan, unless otherwise defined herein.

     Background.  On March 1, 1995, all voting stockholders and all directors of
Smithway Motor Xpress Corp., a Nevada  corporation (the  "Company"),  adopted an
Incentive  Stock Plan (the  "Plan").  On August 15,  1996,  the Company  adopted
Amendment No. 1 to the Plan. The Board of Directors desires to further amend the
Plan to increase the number of shares subject to the Plan.

     In  accordance  with the  foregoing,  Article I of the Plan is  amended  by
deleting the second sentence of Section 1.6 and replacing it with the following:

     The maximum number of shares of Common Stock which may be issued for all
     purposes under the Plan shall be Five Hundred Thousand (500,000).

     This  Amendment  was duly  adopted and approved by the  Company's  Board of
Directors on January 28, 1999 and by the Company's stockholders on May 7, 1999.
Case 3:22-cr-00383-S Document 25 Filed 09/06/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 38
# C_2015089EN.01003801.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/38

---

Action brought on 22 January 2015 — Wolf Oil v OHIM — SCT Lubricants (CHEMPIOIL)

(Case T-34/15)

(2015/C 089/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wolf Oil Corp. (Hemiksem, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert and J. Muyldermans, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: UAB SCT Lubricants (Klaipeda, Lithuania)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the mark ‘CHEMPIOIL’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 0 76  327

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 October 2014 in Case R 1596/2013-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order OHIM and the intervener to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Wolf Oil. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM and the intervener to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Wolf Oil.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 75 and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 75 and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
Case 4:22-cr-00274-P Document 463 Filed 05/17/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1826
Case 4:22-cr-00274-P Document 463 Filed 05/17/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1827
#### PADGET v. STATE.

No. 21427.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 5, 1941.

Dan E. Archer, of Perryton, and Hoover, Hoover & Cussen, of Canadian, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCPIAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the county court of Ochiltree County on a charge of selling liquor, and assessed a fine of $100,. from which he appeals.

The complaint alleges that appellant sold “whiskey to Loy R. Jones, in a dry area, to-wit, on the premises at Lot 18, B. 24, City of Perryton, etc.” As certified by the 'court in approving bills of exception numbers six and nine, the proof failed to show the- sale of liquor at the place described. Loy R. Jones testified in behalf of the state that he bought two half pints of whiskey from appellant, “at his house here in Perry-ton”. He further says that he went to the residence of Ed Padget, “located at 406 South East First Street in Perryton, Ochil-tree County, Texas.” It is further described as the third house south of the American Legion Hall. We do not find in the record proof that it was sold at the place alleged. In view of the allegations made, we think that became necessary and that there is a variance between the information and the proof.

There are thirteen, bills of exception calling attention to other matters presented as irregularities. We think that none of these would likely occur again and that it is not necessary to discuss them.

Because of the variance between the pleading and the proof, the judgment .of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick Derby, Appellant.

Appeal unanimously dismissed. Memorandum: Although the record does not reveal an explicit waiver by defendant of his right to appeal, there is ample evidence in the record to conclude that defendant understood that he was waiving that right as part of his plea bargain and that the waiver was voluntary, knowing and intelligent *(see, People v Moissett,*76 NY2d 909; *People v Seaberg,*74 NY2d 1, 12). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.—burglary, first degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Lawton, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION 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 SureWest Communications (the
"Company"), on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and
     Section 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 Company.

Date:  March 10, 2005

                             By:      /s/ PHILIP A. GRYBAS
                                     -----------------------------------------
                                           Philip A. Grybas,
                                       Senior Vice President and
                                        Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to SureWest Communications and will be retained by SureWest
Communications and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
** **

**Exhibit 34.2**

** **

**Report of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

 

The Board of Directors

The Trust& Securities Services department of Deutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche

Bank TrustCompany Americas:

 

We have examined management’s assessment,included in the accompanying Management’s Assessment of Compliance, that the Trust & Securities Services department ofDeutsche Bank National Trust Company and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (collectively the “Company”) compliedwith the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the HondaAuto Receivables 2012-2 Owner Trust asset-backed securities transaction, the Honda Auto Receivables 2013-3 Owner Trust asset-backedsecurities transaction and the Honda Auto Receivables 2015-2 Owner Trust asset-backed securities transaction (the “Platform”),except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(v), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv),which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform, as of and for theyear ended March 31, 2016. With respect to the Platform, servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii) is applicable only as it relatesto remittances. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility isto express an opinion on management’s assessment about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordancewith the attestation 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 servicing criteria specified above and performingsuch other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactionsand securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whetherthe Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company duringthe period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either priorto or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the periodcovered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonablebasis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicingcriteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assessmentthat the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2016, is fairlystated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

May 27, 2016
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6107

LEE ALLEN KETCHUM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA; ERNEST R.

SUTTON, Superintendent; MICHAEL F. EASLEY,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-98-348-1)

Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 31, 1999

Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lee Allen Ketchum, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Lee Allen Ketchum appeals the district court’s order granting

Respondents’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See

Ketchum v. Attorney General of North Carolina, No. CA-98-348-1

(M.D.N.C. Dec. 16, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED