alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DARRIN S. HINES

,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA COMMISSION ON
OFFENDER REVIEW

,

Respondent. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSI TION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 0169

Opinion filed November 9, 2016.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

-- Original Jurisdiction

.

Darrin S. Hines, pro se , Petitioner.

Rana Wallace, General Counsel, and Mark Hiers, Assistant General Counsel, Flo rida Commission on Offender Review, Tallahassee , for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits

.

ROWE, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ.

, CONCUR.
U.S. flag
      An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.
        Here's how you know
      Here's how you know**Official websites use .gov**
            
            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
      **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
            
            A **lock** (
            A locked padlock
            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Menu

      
        close

            
            
                                              About
          Charter
          Legislation
          Members
          Meetings
          Reports & Resources

                            
                                About
          Contact Us
                  Share
FacebookXLinkedInRedditPinterestEmail Home
 Tuesday, November 18, 2014 Meeting November 18, 2014
Office of Justice Programs
Third Floor Main Conference Room
810 7th Street NW
Washington, DC 20531
Time: 10:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

AgendaMeeting SummaryMeeting Attendance

November 18, 2014 Meeting Materials

**Bios**

Stuart Delery
	Clayton Old Elk**Handouts**

Attorney General's Advisory Committee on American Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence PowerPoint
	Background on the Attorney General's Task Force on American Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence
	U.S. Department of Health and Human Services AnnouncementsReport of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on American Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence:
Available online at https://www.justice.gov/archives/defendingchildhood
  
Date Published: November 18, 2014
 Top

      Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

        
        
                        Facebook
          
                      X
          
                      YouTube
  

      Secondary Footer link menu
            Accessibility
              Plain Language
              Privacy Policy
              Legal Policies and Disclaimer
              No FEAR Act
              Freedom of Information Act
              USA.gov
              Justice.gov
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1247

To prohibit the furnishing of additional loans or credit guarantees by the

United States to any foreign country which is in default or arrears

in the payment of principal or interest on any loan made to the country

by the United States or for which the United States has been obligated

to make payments under a credit guarantee.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 8, 1993

Mr. KYL introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Agriculture, Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs, and

Foreign Affairs

A BILL

To prohibit the furnishing of additional loans or credit guarantees by the United States to any foreign country which

is in default or arrears in the payment of principal

or interest on any loan made to the country by the

United States or for which the United States has been

obligated to make payments under a credit guarantee.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Taxpayer Protection

5 Act’’.
2

•HR 1247 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON LOANS OR GUARANTEES TO

2 COUNTRIES IN DEFAULT.

3 (a) PROHIBITION.—A Federal agency may not make

4 a loan to a foreign country under any law or guarantee

5 under any law the repayment of credit made available to

6 the country if—

7 (1) the country is in default or in arrears in the

8 payment to the United States of principal or interest

9 on any loan made to the country by the United

10 States; or

11 (2) the United States has been obligated, at

12 any time during the preceding one-year period, to

13 make reimbursing payments to a commercial credi14 tor under a credit guarantee issued by the United

15 States on behalf of the country and the country has

16 not repaid the United States the total amount of the

17 payments made by the United States under the

18 guarantee.

19 (b) INVESTIGATION.—The head of a Federal agency

20 making a loan to, or issuing a credit guarantee on behalf

21 of, a foreign country shall make diligent inquiry to ensure

22 that the loan or guarantee is not made or issued in viola23 tion of subsection (a).

24 (c) FEDERAL AGENCY DEFINED.—For purposes of

25 this section, the term ‘‘Federal agency’’ includes the Com26 modity Credit Corporation, the Export-Import Bank of
3

•HR 1247 IH

1 the United States, and the Overseas Private Investment

2 Corporation.

Æ
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP99-507-004]

Take notice that on November 9, 2000, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso) tendered its filing in compliance with ordering paragraphs (B) and (C) of the Commission's order issued October 25, 2000 at Docket No. RP99-507-000, et al.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). 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. 00-29697  Filed 11-20-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 

Tilmon Rufus Partin, )

)

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) Civil Action No. 12-0829 (UNA)

 )

Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General, )

 )

 Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on review of plaintiff’s pro se complaint and application

to proceed in forma pauperis. The application will be granted and the complaint will be

dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (requiring dismissal of a prisoner’s complaint upon a

determination that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted).

Plaintiff is an inmate at the United States Penitentiary Hazelton in Bruceton Mills, West

Virginia, suing under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403

U.S. 388 (1971), to challenge the constitutionality of the statutes under which he was convicted. 

The gravamen of the complaint is that the sentencing court, the United States District Court for

the Eastern District of Kentucky, lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff’s criminal prosecution.

Because the success of plaintiff’s claim would necessarily void his conviction, plaintiff

cannot recover monetary damages, which is the only available remedy under Bivens, without first

showing that he has invalidated the conviction by “revers[al] on direct appeal, expunge[ment] by

executive order, declar[ation of invalidity] by a state tribunal authorized to make such

determination, or . . . a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994); see, e.g., Taylor v. U.S. Bd. of Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 (D.C.

Cir. 1952) (stating that a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the proper vehicle for

challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted); Ojo v. I.N.S.,

106 F.3d 680, 683 (5 Cir. 1997) (explaining that the sentencing court is the only court with th

jurisdiction to hear a defendant’s complaint regarding errors that occurred before or during

sentencing). 

Plaintiff has not shown the invalidation of his conviction and, thus, has failed to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted under Bivens. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies

this Memorandum Opinion.

SIGNED: ELLEN S. HUVELLE 

United States District Judge

Date: June 18, 2012

.

2
-Matthew Richardson, 

Roundtable on Treasury Markets and Debt 

Management, November 18, 2011
 Breakeven inflation (T-Notes minus TIPS 

yields)

◦ Liquidity premium

 What is liquidity?

 Clientele effects?

◦ Inflation risk premium

 What dos it mean to have risk priced?
 Compelling reasons for TIPS

 Completing the market

 Provide regulators/market participants measures of 

expected inflation based on traded prices as opposed 

to professional forecasters.
 Plethora of recent papers looking at same 

thing

◦ Pflueger-Viceira (2011) try to measure liquidity 

more directly.

◦ Highlight their contribution relative to others.

 Properties of breakeven inflation

◦ 10yr inflation forecasts, 10 yrs of data, highly 

persistent against liquidity measures / inflation 

surveys also highly persistent.

◦ Why not contemporaneous changes?
 What is liquidity?

◦ Convert TIPS to cash w/o market impact?

◦ Is there something special about Treasuries?

◦ Pflueger-Viceira use many measures; there are 

many more... principal components?

◦ Or would a structural model be better?

 Some concerns about estimation 

methodology

◦ Estimate L from BEI over entire sample; then, over 

same sample, use L^ to analyze relation between 

R(L^ ) against X(L^ ).
#### HODGE v. STATE.

No. 22678.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 15, 1943.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 26, 1944.

Percy Woodard, of Marshall, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for possessing for the purpose of sale intoxicating liquor in dry territory; punishment assessed being a fine of five hundred dollars.

Appellant entered his plea of guilty, with the result indicated, hence there is no statement of facts upon the original trial. After the fine was entered against him appellant secured a lawyer, and in a motion for new trial various grounds therefor are alleged. The trial judge heard evidence upon the motion and appellant very frankly admitted that the only thing that “upset” him was the amount of the fine. The trial judge testified upon the hearing of the motion as to the circumstances under which the plea of guilty was entered, and as to the warning given, etc.

We see no reason for disturbing the judgment, and the same is affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

GRAVES, Judge.

We can but reiterate what was said in the original opinion herein. Appellant tes*947tified that he had in his possession at the time of his arrest 205 pints of home brew beer, 5 quarts of home brew beer, and 10 gallons thereof; that he knew it had alcohol in it. The testimony on the hearing of a motion for a new trial shows a warning of the trial court, an offer of a three days’ postponement if desired to employ an attorney, and a warning of a probably severe penalty. Nevertheless, appellant admitted his guilt, and told the court how he processed his drink with sugar, malts, etc., and again evidenced his desire to plead guilty. Again at such hearing he merely asserted his dissatisfaction with the amount of fine awarded him.

We see no reason to recede from our original opinion.

The motion will therefore be overruled.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,279,570
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  219,573
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,499,143
<PP&E>                                       7,621,542
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,049,192
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,071,493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           80,693
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,990,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,071,493
<SALES>                                      2,165,342
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,258,564
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,234,191
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,373
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,373
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,373
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.62


</TABLE>
#### MORSE et ux. v. WINTZ.

No. 3874.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

May 10, 1941.

Rehearing Denied June 4, 1941.

Tom F. Coleman and C. W. Falvey, both of Lufkin, for appellants.

C. E. Smith, of Woodville, for appellee.

O’QUINN, Justice.

Wintz sued appellants, J. K. Morse and Lois Morse, to recover on a promissory note in the sum of $5,000, payable to the order of E. C. Wintz and E. D. Wintz, and for foreclosure of a chattel mortgage on certain sawmill property given by appellants to secure the payment of the note. The note was given by appellants for the purchase price of the sawmill and other sawmill properties.

Plaintiff, appellee, alleged that he was the owner and holder of the note by in-dorsement and transfer from E. D. Wintz. Plaintiff’s petition was filed October 8, 1940, and the defendants, appellants, were duly cited to appear and answer in the district court of Tyler County, Texas, on the fourth Monday of October, that being October 28, 1940, and they filed their answer, consisting of a general demurrer and general denial, on October 30, 1940. Defendants resided in Tyler County, Texas.

On November 13, 1940, the cause was called for trial, and plaintiff, appellee, E. C. Wintz, appeared in person and by counsel, and announced ready for trial, and appellants appeared by counsel, who, in open court, announced his withdrawal from further participation in the trial of the cause, whereupon the plaintiff, appellee, submitted all matters in controversy, as well of fact as of law, to the court, and it appearing that plaintiff’s cause of action, after hearing the pleadings of the parties and the evidence, was a liquidated claim evidenced by instruments (note and mortgage) in writing, executed by the defendants, appellants, judgment was rendered for plaintiff, appellee, and against the defendants, appellants, for the amount due on the note and for foreclosure of the chattel mortgage.

On November 29, 1940, defendants, having secured other counsel, filed motion for a new trial. Appellee objected to th'e consideration of the motion, and filed motion to strike same because filed too late, not filed within the time prescribed by law. This motion to strike was sustained by the court, and the motion was accordingly *884stricken and consideration refused. From that order this appeal was taken.

There are in the record (made on the hearing of the motion for a new trial) statements from counsel for appellants, counsel for appellee, and a statement by the court, relative to the manner and- substance of the proceedings before judgment, but as we view the record none of them are material, and we do not state them or comment upon them. The motion for a new trial not having been timely filed, the court did not err in refusing to consider same, and its striking was proper. The judgment is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANGELO DIVISION

LUKE T. CHRISMAN, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situate d,

Plaintiff,

V No . 6'.22-CY -049-H

LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, in his official

capaciry as United States Secretary of

Defense, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is the defendants' opposed motion to extend their deadline to

respond to the plaintiffs motion for attomeys' fees and costs. Dkt. No. 158. Should the

plaintiffchoose to respond, such a response is due by no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 5,

2024.

So ordered on February I 

, 2024.

JAME Y HENDRIX

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:22-cv-00049-H Document 159 Filed 02/01/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 3190
Exhibit 32.1



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 Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc., Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings, L.P. and Trump Entertainment Resorts
Funding, Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James B. Perry, the Chief Executive Officer of the
Companies, certify, 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) 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 Companies.



|                                                                                                                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    JAMES B. PERRY                                                                                                                                           
|James B. Perry Chief Executive Officer of Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings, L.P. Trump Entertainment Resorts Funding, Inc.
|                                                                                                                                                                
|August 15, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 70369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30030]


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

OVERSEAS PRIVATE INVESTMENT CORPORATION


Sunshine Act Meeting

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 pm, Thursday, December 7, 2000.

PLACE: Offices of the Corporation, Twelfth Floor Board Room, 1100 New 
York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: Hearing open to the Public at 2:00 pm.

PURPOSE: In conjunction with the quarterly meeting of OPIC's Board of 
Directors, to afford an opportunity for any person to present views 
regarding the activities of the Corporation.
    Procedure: Individuals wishing to address the hearing orally must 
provide advance notice to OPIC's Corporate Secretary no later than 5 
PM, December 6, 2000. The notice must include the individual's name, 
organization, address, and telephone number, and a concise summary of 
the subject matter to be presented.
    Oral presentations may not exceed ten (10) minutes. The time for 
individual presentations may be reduced proportionately, if necessary, 
to afford all participants who have submitted a timely request to 
participate an opportunity to be heard.
    Participants wishing to submit a written statement for the record 
must submit a copy of such statement to OPIC's Corporate Secretary no 
later than 5 PM, December 6, 2000. Such statements must be typewritten, 
double-spaced and may not exceed twenty-five (25) pages.
    Upon receipt of the required notice, OPIC will prepare an agenda 
for the hearing identifying speakers, setting forth the subject on 
which each participant will speak, and the time allotted for each 
presentation. The agenda will be available at the hearing.
    A written summary of the hearing will be compiled, and such summary 
will be made available, upon written request to OPIC's Corporate 
Secretary, at the cost of reproduction.

CONTACT PERSON FOR INFORMATION: Information on the hearing may be 
obtained from Connie M. Downs at (202) 336-8438, via facsimile at (202) 
408-0297, or via email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7211161d051c321d021b115c151d04"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a090e051d042a051a0309440d051c">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: November 20, 2000.
Connie M. Downs,
OPIC Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30030 Filed 11-20-00; 3:03 pm]
BILLING CODE 3210-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>