alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE: JESUS AGUILAR.

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

No. 08-18-00064-CR

Appeal from the

243rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 970D04229-243-2)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the 

order granting writ of habeas corpus. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order and render 

judgment denying writ of habeas corpus, in accordance with the opinion of the Court. This 

decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2019.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GEO SCIENCE FORM 10-Q 3RD QUARTER 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          1,841
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,617
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     53,709
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                99,732
<PP&E>                                          22,792
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 129,550
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,767
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           105
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   129,550
<SALES>                                         64,815
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                           41,211
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   64,669
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,226
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                101
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,558)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,487)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1335 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs from collecting certain copayments from veterans who are catastrophically disabled. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 5, 2009 

Mrs. HALVORSON (for herself, Mr. FILNER, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. ROSS, Ms. 

KAPTUR, Mr. CHILDERS, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. WALZ, Mr. SABLAN, 

Mr. KISSELL, Mr. NYE, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, Mr. LUJA ́N, Mr. 

DELAHUNT, Mr. PIERLUISI, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Mr. HEINRICH, and 

Ms. KILROY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from collecting certain copayments from veterans who are catastrophically disabled. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON COLLECTION OF CERTAIN 

4 COPAYMENTS FROM VETERANS WHO ARE 

5 CATASTROPHICALLY DISABLED. 

6 (a) PROHIBITION ON COLLECTION OF COPAYMENTS

7 AND OTHER FEES FOR HOSPITAL OR NURSING HOME


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1335 IH

1 CARE.—Section 1710 of title 38, United States Code, is 

2 amended— 

3 (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as sub4 section (i); and 

5 (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the fol6 lowing new subsection (h): 

7 ‘‘(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this sec8 tion, a veteran who is catastrophically disabled shall not 

9 be required to make any payment otherwise required 

10 under subsection (f) or (g) for the receipt of hospital care 

11 or nursing home care under this section.’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (h) of section 

13 1710 of title 38, United States Code, as added by sub14 section (a), shall apply with respect to hospital care or 

15 nursing home care provided after the date of the enact16 ment of this Act. 

Æ 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
#### ROSAS v. STATE.

No. 20074.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 4, 1939.

Oliver W. Johnson, of San Antonio, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

The conviction is for 'aggravated assault; punishment assessed at a fine of $25.

*359The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, hence no question is presented for review. All matters of procedure appearing regular, the judgment will be affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30888]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WO-230-1030-PB-01-24 1A; OMB Approval Number 1004-0001]


Notice of information Collection To Be Submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget for Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has submitted the proposed 
collection of information listed below to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). On August 22, 2000, the BLM 
published a notice in the Federal Register (65 FR 51017) requesting 
comment on this proposed collection. The comment period ended on 
October 23, 2000. The BLM received no comments from the public in 
response to that notice. Copies of the proposed collection of 
information and related forms and explanatory material may be obtained 
by contacting the BLM information clearance officer at the telephone 
number listed below.
    The OMB is required to respond to this request within 60 days but 
may respond after days. For maximum consideration your comments and 
suggestions on the requirement should be made within 30 days directly 
to the Office of Management and Budget, Interior Department Desk 
Officer, (1004-001), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Washington, DC 20503. Please provide a copy of your comments to the 
Bureau Clearance Officer (WO-630), 1849 C St., NW., Mail Stop 401 LS, 
Washington, DC 20240.
    Nature of Comments: We specifically request your comments on the 
following:
    1. Whether the collection of information is necessary for the 
proper functioning of the BLM, including whether the information will 
have practical utility;
    2. The accuracy of the BLM's estimate of the burden of collecting 
the information, including the validity of the methodology and 
assumptions used;
    3. The quality, utility and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and
    4. How to minimize the burden of collecting the information on 
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated 
electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.
    Title: Free Use Application and Permit (43 CFR 3620, 5510).
    OMB Approval Number: 1004-0001.
    Bureau Form Number: Form 5510-1.
    Abstract: The BLM uses this form to collect information from 
applicants for free permits for vegetative or mineral materials.
    Frequency: Once, at time of application.
    Description of Respondents: Respondents include the general public 
and not-for-profit organizations.
    Estimated Completion Time: 30 minutes.
    Annual Responses: 450.
    Filing Fee Per Response: 0.
    Annual Burden Hours: 225.
    Bureau Clearance Officer: Michael Schwartz, (202) 452-5033.

    Dated: November 13, 2000.
Michael Schwartz,
BLM Information Collection Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-30888 Filed 12-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-M
Reco rd of Discussion Docket No. FAA- D ir ecto rate Identifier: -AD
With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

ORG AN I ZAT ION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPI CS DISCUSSED Boeing Barry Bannister 

### 3/ 17/2014 Concu r . (Safety) Boeing Paul Beuter Numerous Concu r. (Maintenance) Boeing Arne Haneberg (Flight Numerous Concur. Controls AR) Boeing Fritz Soedel (Fli ght Nu m ero u s Conc u r. Contro ls AR)

Other / Additi o nal Informati o n : Although Bo e ing doesn't concur that this issue i s "Safety," they concur with the AD action s and complianc e times.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael J. Foskit, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 3.)

— Judgments unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Contrary to defendant’s contention, the superior court information was not jurisdictionally defective. "[T]he Constitution and statute require only that the information charge an offense for which the defendant was held for Grand Jury action” *(People v Menchetti,*76 NY2d 473, 475; see, NY Const, art I, § 6; CPL 195.20). (Appeal from judgments of Cattaraugus County Court, Kelly, J. — violation of probation.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Knoll, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Barry L. McCabe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:



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



| | b. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 10, 2008



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Barry L. McCabe    
|Barry L. McCabe        
|Chief Financial Officer
FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERALD ROSS PIZZUTO, Jr., Petitioner - Appellant,
v. RANDY BLADES, Warden, Idaho Maximum Security Institution, Respondent - Appellee. No. 12-99002 D.C. No. 1:05-cv-00516-BLW District of Idaho, Boise
ORDER

Before: FISHER, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. This case is RESUBMITTED as of the date of this order. In light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Hall v. Florida , 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014), the opinion filed on September 9, 2013 and reported at Pizzuto v. Blades , 729 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2013), is WITHDRAWN. The briefing schedule set in our orde rs of November 4, 2013 and June 10, 2014 is VACATED. Petitioner-Appellant’s Petition for Reh earing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED as moot. 

# FILED
JUL 15 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALSWe VACATE the order of the districtcourt and REMAND the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with Hall
.

2COUNSEL Heather Williams, Federal Defender; Jo seph Schlesinger, Assistant Federal Defender; Joan M. Fisher (argued), Assi stant Federal Defende r, Federal Defender for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento, California, for PetitionerAppellant. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General of Idaho, Paul R. Panther, Deputy Attorney General, and L. LaMont Ande rson (argued), Deputy Attorney General, Boise, Idaho, for Respondent-Appellee.

3
PAD District / Refinery Location Total Atmospheric Distillation Capacity (bbl/cd) Crude Oil Total Downstream Charge Capacity (bbl/sd) Date OperableDate of Last Operation Date Shutdown 

### Table 13. New, Reactivated, and Shutdown Refineries During 2005

a b NEW PAD District III 4,100 0 Goodway Refining LLC Atmore, AL 4,100 0 11/98 REACTIVATED PAD District III 0 15,000 Pelican Refining Company LLC Lake Charles, LA 0 15,000 09/05 SHUTDOWN PAD District III 880 0 Dow Haltermann ProductsChannelview, TX 880 0 01/48 09/04 12/05 Total U.S. Shutdowns 880 0 PAD District VI 42,000 60,500 Caribbean Petroleum CorpSan Juan, PR 42,000 60,500 05/99 12/00 01/05 bbl/cd=Barrels per calendar day. bbl/sd=Barrels per stream day. Sources: Energy Information Administration (EIA) Form EIA-810, "Monthly Refinery Report" and Form EIA-820, "Annual Refinery Report." a b

Energy Information Administration, Refinery Capacity 2006 52
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

‐‐‐‐ ooOoo

‐‐‐‐

Knight Adjustment Bureau,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Eric M. Sanchez,

Defendant and Appellant. )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) PER CURIAM DECISION

Case No. 20110881

‐ CA

F I L E D

(March 8, 2012)

2012 UT App 66

‐‐‐‐‐

Third District, West Jordan Department, 110410814

The Honorable Charlene Barlow

Attorneys: Eric M. Sanchez, West Valley City, Appellant Pro Se

Jay V. Barney, Sandy, for Appellee

‐‐‐‐‐

Before Judges Orme, Thorne, and Christiansen.

¶1 Eric M. Sanchez appeals the district court’s order entered on August 31, 2011.

This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition.

Sanchez does not oppose the motion for summary disposition. We dismiss the appeal

for lack of jurisdiction.

¶2 Rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a notice of appeal

must be filed within thirty days of the entry of the final order or judgment appealed.

See Utah R. App. P. 4(a). If a notice of appeal is not timely filed, this court lacks

jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth.

, 2000 UT App 299,

¶ 7, 13 P.3d 616. If this court lacks jurisdiction over an appeal, we have only the

authority to dismiss the appeal. See Varian

‐ Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux

, 767 P.2d 569, 570

(Utah Ct. App. 1989).20110881

‐ CA 2 ¶3 On August 31, 2011, the district court entered the final judgment in the

underlying matter. On October 3, 2011, Sanchez filed his notice of appeal in the district

court. Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, this court lacks jurisdiction to

consider the appeal. See Serrato

, 2000 UT App 299, ¶ 7. Thus, we are required to

dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Varian

‐ Eimac, Inc.

, 767 P.2d at 570.

¶4 Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________ Gregory K. Orme, Judge

____________________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

____________________________________ Michele M. Christiansen, Judge
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF KAYENTA KREATIONS, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           7,283
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,042
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,325
<PP&E>                                          11,264
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,423
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,614
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              234
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,019
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,193
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,614
<SALES>                                             42
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    42
<CGS>                                               13
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       13
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,647
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   5
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,560)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,560)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,560)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
Amendment to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.26 
  
 April 25, 2005 
  
 Mr. Thomas J. Quinlan, III 
 [Address] 
  
 Dear Tom: 
  
 The purpose of this letter (the “Letter”) is to amend the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (the “Employment
Agreement”), dated as of December 11, 2000 and amended and restated as of November 5, 2002, between you and Moore Wallace Incorporated (formerly known as Moore Corporation Limited) (“Moore”). 
  
 You and we hereby acknowledge and agree, by our execution of this Letter, that: 

 
 1. Moore is hereby assigning, transferring, conveying and delivering unto R.R. Donnelley
& Sons Company (“Donnelley”), its successors and assigns, all of its rights pursuant to the Employment Agreement, together with all claims, actions, judicial proceedings and interests relating thereto. 
  
 2. Donnelley, for itself and its successors and assigns, is hereby assuming and undertaking
to perform, pay or discharge in due course all debts, liabilities, obligations, commitments and undertakings of Moore arising under the Employment Agreement of every kind, character or description. 
  
 3. All references in the Employment Agreement to the “Company” shall be deemed to
be references to Donnelley and its subsidiaries and affiliates, except where the context otherwise requires. 
  
 4. Neither the execution of this Letter nor the changes contemplated hereby shall constitute (i) a termination of your employment or (ii) “Good Reason,” in each case within the meaning of the Employment
Agreement. 
  
 5. In order to reflect your current title at Donnelley, the
Employment Agreement is amended to replace the words “Executive Vice President, Corporate Operations and Treasurer” in the second sentence of the first paragraph with the words “Executive Vice President, Operations”, and to
replace the words “EVP Corporate Operations and Treasurer” in the first sentence of the first paragraph of Section II with the words “Executive Vice President, Operations.” 
  
 6. Paragraph (i) of Section I is amended to replace “$330,000” in the first
sentence with “$480,000.” Paragraph (ii) of Section I is amended to replace “100%” in the first sentence with “150%.” 
  
 Except to the extent modified by this Letter, the Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect. If the foregoing terms and conditions are acceptable and agreed
to by you, please sign on the line provided below to signify such acceptance and agreement, and return the executed copy to Sue Bettman, Donnelley’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel. 








			
	R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Mark A. Angelson


	Name:	 	Mark A. Angelson
	Its:	 	Chief Executive Officer
	
	Moore Wallace Incorporated
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Suzanne S. Bettman


	Name:	 	Suzanne S. Bettman
	Its:	 	Senior Vice President

  
 Accepted and agreed as of this 25th
date of April 2005 
  

	
	 /s/ Thomas J. Quinlan, III


	Thomas J. Quinlan, III

  

 2
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1536

To suspend until January 1, 1997, the duty on 2,2-Bis-[4-(4-

aminophenoxy)phenyl]-propane.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 30, 1993

Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To suspend until January 1, 1997, the duty on 2,2-Bis-

[4-(4-aminophenoxy)phenyl]-propane.

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

3 SECTION 1. 2,2-BIS-[4-(4-AMINOPHENOXY)PHENYL]-

4 PROPANE.

5 Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tar6 iff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting

7 in numerical sequence the following new heading:

‘‘ 9902.31.12 2,2-Bis-[4-(4-

aminophenoxy)phenyl]-

propane (CAS

No. 13080–86–

9) (provided for

in subheading

2922.29.50) ...... Free No change No change On or before

12/31/96 ’’.
2

•HR 1536 IH

1 SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY.

2 The amendment made by section 1 applies with re3 spect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for

4 consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of

5 the enactment of this Act.

Æ
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 9, 2020

No. 04-19-00889-CR

Cameron Antoine ROBY,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR6809

The Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on March 19, 2020. On July 31, 2020, we 

abated this case for an abandonment hearing. On August 27, 2020, we reinstated this case after 

the trial court had appointed new appellate counsel. On October 5, 2020, we received notice that 

newly appointed counsel had died; consequently, the trial court appointed another counsel, 

Patrick Ballantyne, to represent appellant. On October 18, 2020, Mr. Ballantyne requested a 

sixty-day extension of time to review the record and file a brief. We granted the request and 

ordered appellant’s brief due on December 4, 2020.

To date, appellant’s brief has not been filed. Therefore, appellant’s attorney, Mr. 

Ballantyne, is ORDERED to respond to this court in writing by December 14, 2020. The 

response should state a reasonable explanation for failing to timely file the brief and demonstrate 

the steps being taken to remedy the deficiency. If Mr. Ballantyne fails to file an adequate 

response within seven days, this appeal will be abated to the trial court for an abandonment 

hearing, and the trial court will be asked to consider whether sanctions are appropriate. TEX. R.

APP. P. 38.8(b)(2).

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 9th day of December, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court