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

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00091-Z-BR

§

MARTIN GONZALEZ (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

MARTIN GONZALEZ (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 1997), has 

appeared before me pursuant to FED. R. CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Superseding 

Information. After cautioning and examining MARTIN GONZALEZ (1) under oath concerning each of the subjects 

mentioned in Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is

supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend 

that the plea of guilty be accepted, and that MARTIN GONZALEZ (1) be adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 

841(b)(1)(C) - POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE FENTANYL and have sentence imposed accordingly. 

After being found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☒ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: January 13, 2023

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00091-Z-BR Document 55 Filed 01/13/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 112
Case 4:22-cr-00317-P Document 20 Filed 11/09/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 35
Case 4:22-cr-00317-P Document 20 Filed 11/09/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 36
H. J. Res. 374

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four

Joint Resolution

Designating August 2, 1994, as ‘‘National Neighborhood Crime Watch Day’’.

Whereas neighborhood crime is of continuing concern to the American people;

Whereas the fight against neighborhood crime requires people to

work together in cooperation with law enforcement officials;

Whereas neighborhood crime watch organizations are effective at

promoting awareness about, and the participation of volunteers

in, crime prevention activities at the local level;

Whereas neighborhood crime watch groups can contribute to the

Nation’s war on drugs by helping to prevent their communities

from becoming markets for drug dealers; and

Whereas citizens across America will soon take part in a ‘‘National

Night Out’’, a unique crime prevention event which will demonstrate the importance and effectiveness of community participation in crime prevention efforts by having people spend the period

from 9 to 10 o’clock postmeridian on August 2, 1994, with their

neighbors in front of their homes: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That August 2,

1994, is designated as ‘‘National Neighborhood Crime Watch Day’’,

and the President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such

day with appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
Special Inspector General for the 

Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) Table 4.1

FY 2014 Treasury Congressional Justification

Major IT FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 % Change

Investments Actual Actual Plan Request from FY 12

to FY 14 

0 0 0 0

Non-Major IT FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 % Change

Investments Actual Actual Plan Request from FY 12

to FY 14 

6,740.00 3,491.00 4,200.00 4,000.00 14.58%

 O&M:

015-05-0133 / Special Inspector General for 

the Troubled Asset Relief Program 6,740.00 3,491.00 4,200.00 4,000.00 14.58%

6,740.00 3,491.00 4,200.00 4,000.00 14.58%

0 0 0 0 0.00%

6,740.00 3,491.00 4,200.00 4,000.00 14.58%

Major Non-IT FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 % Change

Investments Actual Actual Plan Request from FY 12

to FY 14 

172 149 153 60 -59.73%

 O&M:

015-05-0133 / Special Inspector General for 

the Troubled Asset Relief Program 172 149 153 60 -59.73%

0 0 0 0 0.00%

172 149 153 60 -59.73%

172 149 153 60

6,912.00 3,640.00 4,353.00 4,060.00

Subtotal - Non-IT DM&E

Subtotal - Non-IT O&M

Total for Major Non-IT Investments

Total Capital Investments 

Non-IT

Funding Source 

Equipment

 Agency Funding

IT Investments 6,740.00 3,491.00 4,200.00 4,000.00

Information Technology

Funding Source 

Subtotal of All Major ITInvestments

Funding Source 

Audit/Investigations

 Agency Funding

Subtotal of All Non-Major ITInvestments

Subtotal - IT DM&E

Subtotal - IT O&M

Total for Major and Non-Major
#### MARSHALL v. STATE.

No. 21990.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 11, 1942.

No attorney for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for passing a forged instrument. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a period of three years.

The record is before us without bills of exception or a statement of facts. The indictment and all other matters of procedure appear to be in regular form.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminál Appeals and approved by the Court.
#### CALDWELL v. SHEARER.

No. 11089.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Feb. 4, 1942.

John T. Spann, of Crystal City, for appellant.

R. S. Crawford and Geo. C. Herman, both of Crystal City, for appellee.

MURRAY, Justice.

This suit was instituted by Lewis Caldwell against D. G. Shearer allegedly seeking to recover the office of County Commissioner of Precinct No. 1, Zavala County, Texas.

The trial court sustained a plea in abatement and dismissed Caldwell’s suit, from which judgment he has prosecuted this appeal.

Appellant contends that his suit is a suit for office but the allegations of his petition show that he is in truth and in fact attempting to contest a primary election held on July 27, 1940. Appellant’s suit was not filed until April 22, 1941. Appellant does not contend that he was elected to such office at the general election held in November, 1940. The question as to who was nominated for the office in the primary of July, 1940, is now moot. Iles v. Walker, 132 Tex. 6, 120 S.W.2d 418; Taylor v. Nealon, 132 Tex. 60, 120 S.W.2d 586.

Appellant can not convert a contest of a primary election into a suit for office simply by declaring it to be such a suit.

The suit filed by appellant was not filed within the time required for the filing of contest of primary elections (Art. 3152, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats.), and even if the same had been filed in time it presents a matter which is now moot.

The trial court properly sustained the plea in abatement and committed no error in dismissing the cause.

The judgment is affirmed.
FILED

7/6/2022 10:25 AM

FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS

Rhonda Burks DEPUTY

CAUSE N0. DC-22-05135

ELLA CAINE, et al IN THE DISTRICT COURT PLAINTIFF,

V. 14th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

EDUVISION, INC. (D/B/A ARIZONA COLLEGE OF NURSING DALLAS; AZCC EDUCATION, INC.; ARIZONA COLLEGE DALLAS) DEFENDANTS. OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

NOTICE OF NONSUIT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Maria Herrera, in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and

files this Notice ofNonsuit.

Plaintiffs hereby advise the Court that all claims and causes of action in this lawsuit

between Maria Herrera and Defendants EDUVISION, INC. (D/B/A ARIZONA COLLEGE OF NURSING DALLAS; AZCC EDUCATION, INC.; ARIZONA COLLEGE DALLAS) have

been fully resolved, and Plaintiff hereby agreesto dismiss any and all claims against Defendants

with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,

NGUYEN KAN

Don Nguyen

Texas Bar No. 24092897 don@nk1aw.us 7211 Regency Square B1Vd., Suite 220 Houston, TX 77036 Phone: 281.940.4088

EXHIBIT G

Case 3:22-cv-01713-S Document 1-7 Filed 08/08/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 23
Fax: 832.271.4299 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

EXHIBIT G

Case 3:22-cv-01713-S Document 1-7 Filed 08/08/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 24
Automated Certificate of eService

This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system

on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing

certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide

certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Yessica Contreras Herrera on behalf of Don Nguyen Bar No. 24092897

yessica@nklaw.us Envelope ID: 66048128

Status as of 7/6/2022 10:47 AM CST

Associated Case Party: ELLA CAINE

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Don Nguyen don@nklaw.us 7/6/2022 10:25:55 AM SENT

EXHIBIT G

Case 3:22-cv-01713-S Document 1-7 Filed 08/08/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 25
|                                                                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                
|View History: Annual                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                          
|View History:                                                                 
|                                                                              
|Mississippi Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                              
|                                                                              
|Mississippi Number of Operable Refineries as of January 1 (Number of Elements)
|                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 7      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 5      | 5      | 6      | 6     
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 6      | 5      | NA     | 4      | NA     | 4     
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 4      | 3      | 3      | 3     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 3      | 3      | 3      | 3      | 3      | 3      | 3      | 3      | 3      | 3     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3      | 3      | 3      | 3      | 3      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 73

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit

service by Representatives, Senators, and Federal judges.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 26, 1993

Mr. JACOBS introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to limit service by Representatives, Senators, and

Federal judges.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, to be valid as part of the

6 Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three7 fourths of the several States within seven years after the

8 date of final passage of this joint resolution:
2

HJ 73 IH

1 ‘‘ARTICLE—

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person may serve as a Representa3 tive in Congress for more than ten years during any

4 twelve-year period.

5 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person may serve as a Senator in

6 Congress for more then twelve years during any fourteen7 year period.

8 ‘‘SECTION 3. No person may serve as a judge of the

9 supreme Court or an inferior Court of the United States

10 for more than ten years during any twelve-year period.

11 ‘‘SECTION 4. Time served in office prior to comple12 tion of ratification of this article shall not be included for

13 purposes of section 1, 2, or 3.

14 ‘‘SECTION 5. The Congress shall have power to en15 force this article by appropriate legislation.’’.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 223 (Friday, November 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69567-69568]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29433]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Library of Medicine; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose

[[Page 69568]]

confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material, and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Library of Medicine Special Emphasis 
Panel; Protein Information Resource for the Next Millennium.
    Date: December 5-6, 2000.
    Time: December 5, 2000, 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Time: December 6, 2000, 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Milton Corn, MD, Associate Director, Office of 
Extramural Programs, National Library of Medicine, National 
Institutes of Health, One Rockledge Center, Suite 301, 6706 
Rockledge Drive, MSC 6075, Bethesda, MD 20892-6075, 301-496-4621.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.879, 
Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: November 9, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-29433 Filed 11-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### CITY OF GALVESTON v. HEFFERNAN et al.

No. 7838.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Nov. 5, 1941.

Bryan F. Williams, City Atty., and Frank B. Nussbaum, Asst. City Atty., both of Galveston, for plaintiff in error.

Thornton, Markwell & Stubbs, of Galveston, for defendant in error.

W. Ray Scruggs, Allen, Helm & Jacobs, and Wm. States Jacobs, all of Houston, and Obel McAlister, of Fort Worth, Amici Curiae.

CRITZ, Justice.

The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, which is found in 146 S.W.2d 416, makes a complete statement of the facts and questions of law involved in this case. After a careful consideration of such opinion we have decided that it correctly disposes of the law questions involved in this appeal, and for correct reasons given. No good reason can be served by our further discussion of the law questions involved. We therefore approve the same.

We granted the writ of error in this case on the tentative belief that the opinion herein conflicts with the opinion of the Waco Court of Civil Appeals in the case of Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Lusk et al., Tex.Civ.App., 52 S.W.2d 1110, writ refused. After a careful consideration of the two opinions we have reached the conclusion that they do not conflict in any way, but that both correctly announce the law. In the Lusk case, as shown by the opinion, the Lusks brought suit to enforce a contract made in direct violation of Articles 1569 and 1572, Texas Penal Code. The opinion simply holds that resort cannot be had to our courts to enforce contracts made in violation of our penal laws. This case involves no effort to enforce a contract denounced by our penal laws. It is simply an action to recover on a quantum meruit for overtime services'rendered by the firemen of the City of Galveston. This fully appears in the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

FRANCIS ANTHONY MILLIARD,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 372 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of April, 2022

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
----

            COMMISSION DECISION         

of 30 May 2005         

amending Decisions 2004/696/EC and 2004/863/EC on the Community's financial contribution to the TSE eradication and monitoring programmes for 2005

(notified under document number C(2005) 1550)

(2005/413/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1), and in particular Article 24(5) and (6) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Annex I to Decision 2004/696/EC is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Decision.

Article 2

Decision 2004/863/EC is amended as follows:

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 30 May 2005.

For the Commission

Markos KYPRIANOU            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 19. Decision as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 806/2003 (OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 316, 15.10.2004, p. 91.

(3)OJ L 370, 17.12.2004, p. 82.

(4)OJ L 147, 31.5.2001, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) 260/2005 (OJ L 46, 17.2.2005, p. 9).

(5)OJ L 37, 10.2.2005, p. 9.

(6)OJ L 10, 13.1.2005, p. 9.

----

ANNEX I

Annex I to Decision 2004/696/EC is replaced by the following:

                     ‘ANNEX I

List of programmes for the monitoring of TSEs

Rate and maximum amount of the Community financial contribution

----

(1)  Rapid tests and primary molecular tests.’         

----

ANNEX II

                     ‘ANNEX

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § 2:22-CR-00060-Z-BR

§

RACHEL DAWN ROMERO (1) §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

RACHEL DAWN ROMERO (1), by consent, under authority of United States v. Dees, 125 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 

1997), has appeared before me pursuant to FED. R.CRIM. P. 11, and has entered a plea of guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment.

After cautioning and examining RACHEL DAWN ROMERO (1) under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in 

Rule 11, I determined that the guilty plea was knowledgeable and voluntary and that the offense charged is supported by an 

independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of such offense. I therefore recommend that the plea of 

guilty be accepted, and that RACHEL DAWN ROMERO (1) be adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C) 

- POSSESSION WITH INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE METHAMPHETAMINE and have sentence imposed accordingly. 

After being found guilty of the offense by the District Judge,

☐ The defendant is currently in custody and should be ordered to remain in custody.

☐ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) unless the Court finds by clear and 

convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community 

if released.

☐ The Government does not oppose release.

☐ The defendant has been compliant with the current conditions of release.

☐ I find by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other 

person or the community if released and should therefore be released under § 3142(b) or (c).

☐ The Government opposes release.

☐ The defendant has not been compliant with the conditions of release.

☐ If the Court accepts this recommendation, this matter should be set for hearing upon motion of the 

Government.

☒ The defendant must be ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) unless (1)(a) the Court finds there is a 

substantial likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted, or (b) the Government has 

recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed, or (c) exceptional circumstances are clearly shown 

under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be detained, and (2) the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence 

that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released.

Date: November 28, 2022

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Failure to file written objections to this Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days from the date of its 

service shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking such Report and Recommendation before the assigned United States 

District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

Case 2:22-cr-00060-Z-BR Document 41 Filed 11/28/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 91