alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-41263

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MACRINO ESPINOZA-VASQUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. M-00-CR-313-2

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

June 19, 2002

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Macrino Espinoza-Vasquez appeals his guilty-plea conviction

and sentence for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.

Espinoza contends that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is unconstitutional in

light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). As

Espinoza concedes, his argument is foreclosed by circuit

precedent, but he raises the issue to preserve it for Supreme

Court review. See United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580, 582

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 1045 (2001). The

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Skip to main content


NCD.gov
      
      
      -A +ASearch form
    SearchFollow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter About UsNewsroomNewsroom HomeTestimony & SpeechesNewsletterFunding OpportunitiesProgress ReportsPublicationsResourcesFAQsMeeting & EventsOther Events30 on ADA 30NCD policy briefings to Congressional staff on AbilityOne ReportAccountabilityBuy American Act ReportsGovernment Performance and Results Act ReportsCongressional Budget Justification ReportsFinancial Audit ReportsNCD Strategic PlanNCD Annual Employee SurveyNCD BylawsNo Fear ActFOIAFOIA e-LibraryAnnual ReportsQuarterly ReportsChief FOIA Officer ReportsMake a FOIA RequestReference GuideNCD FOIA RegulationEquity
 Preview NCD's New NCD.gov Website in Beta
  
  Take a look at the new beta site, an early, in-progress version at beta.NCD.gov
          Page not foundSkip to Page ContentThe requested page "/rawmedia_repository/2003.pdf" could not be found. NCD Policy Areas
  
  CRPDCivil RightsCultural DiversityEducationEmergency ManagementEmploymentFinancial Assistance & IncentivesHealth CareHousingInternationalLong Term Services & SupportTechnologyTransportationYouth Perspectives Contact Us
  
  If you have a question or comment, please let us know.
202-272-2004 (voice)
202-272-2022 (Fax)   Email NCD   Language Access Needs? Stay Connected with NCD
  
  Subscribe to NCD Updates   Newsroom   Join us on Facebook   Follow us on Twitter   Follow us on Instagram   Subscribe to our YouTube Channel   Follow us on LinkedIn   Meetings and Events   Link to Us   NCD Council & Staff
Employment Opportunities
 **National Council on Disability**   1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850   Washington, DC 20004
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69942]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29784]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

[Document Identifier: HCFA-10004]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; 
Comment Request

AGENCY: Health Care Financing Administration, HHS.
    In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing 
Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, is 
publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public 
comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this 
burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, 
including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility 
of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of 
the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) 
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology to minimize the information 
collection burden.
    Type of Information Collection Request: New; Title of Information 
Collection: Restraints/Seclusion Death Reporting for Hospitals; Form 
No.: HCFA-10004 (OMB# 0938-XXXX); Use: This collection requires 
hospitals to report deaths of patients while in restraints or 
seclusion; Frequency: On occasion; Affected Public: Businesses and 
other for-profit, Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 
6,072; Total Annual Responses: Total Annual Hours: 3.
    To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms 
for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's 
Web Site address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail 
your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and 
HCFA document identifier, to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#015160716473766e736a41696267602f666e77"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a4f4c5d4c1d6d3cbd6cfe4ccc7c2c58ac3cbd2">[email protected]</span></a>, or call the Reports 
Clearance Office on (410) 786-1326. Written comments and 
recommendations for the proposed information collections must be mailed 
on or before January 22, 2001 directly to the HCFA Paperwork Clearance 
Officer designated at the following address: HCFA, Office of 
Information Services, Security and Standards Group, Division of HCFA 
Enterprise Standards, Attention: Julie Brown, Room N2-14-26, 7500 
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    Dated: November 9, 2000.
John P. Burke, III,
Reports Clearance Officer, Security and Standards Group, Division of 
HCFA Enterprise Standards.
[FR Doc. 00-29784 Filed 11-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-03-P


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

No. 3843.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

March 27, 1941.

J. T. Adams and W. P. Sexton, both of Orange, for appellant.

Lamar Cecil and Albert Maverick, both of Beaumont, for appellee.

WALKER, Chief Justice.

For cause of action against appellant, appellee alleged that “on or about the 15th day of November, 1939, he was driv- ■ ing eastward on the Old Spanish Train Highway between the town of Vidor and the City of Orange (in Orange County), Texas, at about 8 o’clock P. M., and while on the right side of the middle of the highway he ran into the rear end of a parked car, license No. 159-739 Texas, which was was in use by said defendant, its agents, servants and employees and was left in the position above stated when plaintiff’s car. collided with the same, and the position in which said car was so situated at the time of the collision was placed in such position by said defendant and the agents, servants and employees of said defendant.” His prayer was for judgment against appellant in the sum of $221.55, the damages suffered by him in the collision. Appellant duly filed its plea of privilege to be sued in Dallas County, to which appellee duly filed • his controverting affidavit claiming venue in Orange County on the ground “that said collision and said acts of the defendant constituted a trespass within the provisions of Sub. 9 of Art. 1995, R.S.1925.” Appellant has prosecuted its appeal to this court from the judgment of the lower court overruling its plea of privilege. The judgment is erroneous. The facts alleged do not constitute a “trespass” within the meaning of that term as used in Sub. 9 of Art. 1995, R.S.1925. Ricker v. Shoemaker, 81 Tex. 22, 16 S.W. 645; Roadway Transport Co. v. Gray, Tex.Civ.App., 135 S.W.2d 200.

The facts have been fully developed. The judgment of the lower court is reversed and cause remanded, with instructions to transfer this case to the County Court of Dallas County.'

Reversed and remanded with instructions.
```

[Federal Register: August 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 154)]
[Notices]               
[Page 48738-48739]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11au10-104]                         

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

 
Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending July 28, 2010

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under subpart 
B (formerly subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural

[[Page 48739]]

Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.).
    The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motions to 
Modify Scope are set forth below for each application. Following the 
Answer period DOT may process the application by expedited procedures. 
Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a show-cause order, a 
tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final order without further 
proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0190.
    Date Filed: July 28, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: August 18, 2010.
    Description: Application of Aviation Services, Ltd. (d/b/a Freedom 
Air (Guam)) (``Freedom Air'') requesting a certificate of public 
convenience and necessity authorizing Freedom Air to engage in 
interstate scheduled air transportation of persons, property and mail.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-19761 Filed 8-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
```
Case 4:22-cr-00323-Y Document 25 Filed 11/02/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 46
Case 4:22-cr-00323-Y Document 25 Filed 11/02/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 47
#### Eddie McGILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 21372.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 15, 1941.

Ralph Dickson and Kelly Tipps, both of Wichita Falls, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for the burglary of a ;private residence at night. The punishment .assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

Since perfecting his appeal, appellant has filed a written motion, duly verified, requesting the 'privilege of withdrawing said .appeal. The request is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
# Learning to Fight from the Ground Up: American Antiaircraft Artillery in World War II

/ Published Feb. 12, 2019
JFSC Faculty, Dr Bryon Greenwald published "Learning to Fight from the Ground Up: American Antiaircraft Artillery in World War II" in- On Point: The Journal of Army History online Summer 2018, Vol 24 No. 1.
Learning to Fight from the Ground Up--American AAA in World War II.pdf
#### GARRETT v. WILLIAMS et al.

No. 2073.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Dec. 6, 1940.

James E. Faulkner, of Henderson, for appellant.

Joe C. Gladney and J. M. Burns, Jr., both of Henderson, for appellees.

.LESLIE, Chief Justice.

From a judgment in the trial court in favor of the plaintiffs (Leuvinia Williams joined pro forma by her husband, R. W. Williams) the defendant Charley Garrett appeals by virtue of an affidavit of inability to pay costs in lieu of a regular appeal bond. Neither litigant has briefed the case in this court. We have examined the record for. fundamental error and, finding none, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed on the authority of Haynes v. Radford Groc. Co., 118 Tex. 277, 14 S.W.2d 811. It is so ordered.
Page 1 of 2

Deny and Opinion Filed April 13, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00539-CV

IN RE MUNGER AVENUE BAPTIST CHURCH, WADE DAVIS, AND 

PAMELA WARD, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-02634

OPINION

Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Smith 

Opinion by Justice Molberg

Relators’ July 6, 2021 petition for writ of mandamus challenges the trial 

court’s denial of relators’ plea to the jurisdiction. Relators argue that real party

lacked standing to bring suit and that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine barred 

the trial court from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted 

therein. Real party’s claims of breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, fraud by nondisclosure, theft of property, conspiracy, and certain declaratory relief all relate to 

real party’s allegations that relator Pastor Wade Davis made unauthorized 
Page 2 of 2

withdrawals and personal use of Church funds and that relator Pamela Ward

assisted Davis in doing so. 

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relators to show that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that they lack an adequate appellate remedy. In re 

Prudential Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). 

However, where the petition for writ of mandamus challenges the trial court’s 

subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying proceeding, relators need not 

establish the lack of an adequate appellate remedy. In re Episcopal School of 

Dallas, Inc., 556 S.W.3d 347, 360 (Tex. App.—Dallas, 2017 orig. proceeding) 

(challenging denial of plea to the jurisdiction). 

Based on our review of relators’ petition and record, and real party’s 

response and supplemental record, we conclude relators have failed to demonstrate 

that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in denying relators’ plea to the 

jurisdiction. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a). 

210539f.p05 /Ken Molberg//

KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00008-CV

In re Phillip G. Scott

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a); see 

also Tex. Code Crim. Pro. art. 32.01(a) (providing dismissal occurs if defendant is not indicted 

“on or before the last day of the next term of the court which is held after the defendant's 

commitment or admission to bail or on or before the 180th day after the date of commitment or 

admission to bail, whichever date is later”).

__________________________________________

Thomas J. Baker, Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Triana

Filed: January 12, 2022
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 97-1310MN

_____________

Ray G. Mair, individually and as *

personal representative for the Estate of *

Juniet N. Mair, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District

Hagerty, Johnson, Albrightson & Beitz, * of Minnesota.

P.A., a Minnesota professional *

corporation; James Anthony Beitz; * [UNPUBLISHED]

David W. Johnson, individually; *

Popham, Haik, Schnobrich & Kaufman, *

Ltd., a Minnesota Limited Partnership; *

Raymond Haik, individually, *

*

Appellees. *

_____________

 Submitted: October 20, 1997

Filed: October 30, 1997

_____________

Before FAGG, WOLLMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Ray G. Mair, individually and as personal representative for the Estate of Juniet

N. Mair, appeals the adverse grants of summary judgment to the law firms sued by

Mair on state law claims for malpractice. We review a grant of summary judgment
-2-

under a well-established standard. Because this is a diversity action, we review de

novo questions of state law. Having considered the record and the parties' briefs, we

are satisfied the district court correctly applied controlling state law, and the record

supports the district court's rulings. We also conclude a comprehensive opinion in this

diversity case would lack precedential value. We thus affirm on the basis of the district

court's rulings without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
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 World Health Energy Holdings, Inc., (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2015 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the
undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 operation of the
Company.



|Date: August 14, 2015 | By: | /s/ David Lieberman     
|--------------------- | --- | ------------------------
|                      |     | David Lieberman,        
|                      |     | President, CEO, Director



A signed original
of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| (logo) WELLS  FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon Street  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|---------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

ReferenceisherebymadetothatcertainPooling and Servicing Agreement dated as ofApril1,2015,byandamongWELLSFARGOCOMMERCIALMORTGAGESECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTOCAPITALADVISORS,LLC,asSpecialServicer,TRIMONTREALESTATEADVISORS,INC,as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as CertificateAdministrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian and WILMINGTON TRUST,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2015-NXS1 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuantto Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice Presidentof Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.       Areview of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision,and

 

2.       To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilledall of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughoutthe ReportingPeriod.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned hasexecuted this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary2018.

 

/s/Daniel Bober

DanielBober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells  Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|------------------------------------|
Exhibit 35.8












RE: Annual Statement
of Compliance for JPMBB Commercial Mortgage Securities Trust 2015-C28 Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C28



Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April
1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator
("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):



(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period
and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and



(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review,
Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.







March 1, 2016





BRIAN SMITH

Vice President
### Page 1 of 3 **Disposition Comments Docket No:**  

### FAA - 201 4 - 0 8 76 These comments are in **Directorate ID:** 

### 201 4 - CE - 0 3 2 - AD response to an SNPRM Originating Office Tracking No.: **Next Step:** FRAN SNPRM 

### N o C omments/Only

Supportive Comments Received

– If this box is checked, no signatures are required. No 

### Has the reference d service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? I f ye s, lis t latest revision and attach a cop y. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance. Instructions: Summarize all comments **by issue** (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of each issue. **All comments relating to the sam e issue should be discussed together.**  Do not list all of the issues from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA - IR- M - 8040.1C Chapter 9. **ISSUE 1:** Select one o

f the following : If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because

Make the following changes to the AD: If **NO** , we don’t agree because **ISSUE 2**  **:** Select one of the following :

If other, explain : Commenter(s): What change to the AD action is requested? Why is the change requested or how is it justified? Do we agree? If **YES,** we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: If **PARTIALLY AGREE** , we agree with because We disagree with because Make the following changes to the AD:

### Page 2 of 3

If **NO** , we don’t agree because **For additional issues, do uble**  **- click**  **here**

### Page 3 of 3 **S ignature Section**  Signature indicates concurrence with this action. Originating Office Tracking No.: **ASE** Printed Name **: Date** 

**Branch M anager**  **Date**