alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-11-0011-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JANUARY 28, 2011

In re SYGOURNEY N. GRAJEDA, Relator 

***Memorandum Opinion On Original Proceeding for Writ of Mandamus***

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Pending before the court is the petition of Sygourney N. Grajeda for a writ of mandamus.  Grajeda asks that we “compel [the] respondent, Judge Roland Saul of the 222nd District Court, Deaf Smith County, to appoint an attorney to represent her in her motion for forensic DNA testing.”   We deny the petition.

	According to the record before us, Grajeda requested that the trial court appoint her counsel, but it had yet to rule on the request when the petition was filed.  In such situations, we are barred from ordering the trial court to rule in a particular manner; we, at best, could only order that it rule on the motion.  *See O'Donniley v. Golden*, 860 S.W.2d 267, 269 (Tex. App.–Tyler 1993, orig. proceeding).  Since receiving the petition, the trial court has ruled upon the motion and denied the request for counsel.  It concluded that it found no reasonable grounds for the motion for DNA testing to be filed.  So the matter of ordering the trial court to act has become moot.  And, because nothing in the petition purports to attack the trial court’s decision to deny counsel, explain why the trial court’s decision could be wrong, or even establish that the trial court’s decision could be reviewed via a petition for mandamus, we do not consider the current petition as evincing a request for us to review the decision.[footnoteRef:1]   [1: The Court of Criminal Appeals in Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) has held that an order denying appointed counsel under article 64.01(c) is not an immediately appealable order, but it did not address whether the issue could be considered through a writ of mandamus.] 

Accordingly, the petition is denied at this time.  

Brian Quinn

Chief Justice

2
The Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy

The Advisory Com m ittee on International Econom ic Policy is not subject to the Em olum ents Clause.

April 17, 1996

L e t t e r O p in io n f o r t h e D e p u t y L e g a l A d v is e r

D e p a r t m e n t o f S t a t e

As you requested, we have reviewed the question whether members of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy (“ IEP Advisory Committee” ) 

would occupy an “ Office of Profit or Trust” within the meaning of the Emoluments Clause, U.S. Const, art. I, §9, cl. 8. As we have advised you before, we 

reject the sweeping and unqualified view, expressed on one occasion by our Office, that federal advisory committee members, as such, are subject to the Emoluments Clause. See Applicability o f 18 U.S.C. §219 to Members o f Federal Advisory Committees, 15 Op. O.L.C. 65, 68 (1991).

The members of the IEP Advisory Committee meet only occasionally, serve 

without compensation, take no oath, and do not have access to classified information; furthermore, the Committee is purely advisory, is not a creature of statute, 

and discharges no substantive statutory responsibilities. We therefore believe that 

the members of the IEP Advisory Committee do not occupy “ Office[s] of Profit 

or Trust” under the Emoluments Clause. We do not address the argument that 

the Office of Government Ethics’ longstanding test for determining who are Special Government Employees (“ SGEs” ) should be substantially narrowed, so that 

members of State Department advisory committees would generally not qualify 

as SGEs, nor be subject, by reason of SGE status, to the Emoluments Clause, 

see Letter to Walter Dellinger, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, from Conrad K. Harper, Legal Adviser, Department of State (Feb. 13, 1995).

WALTER DELLINGER 

Assistant Attorney General

Office o f Legal Counsel

123
Exhibit 31.1**Certification of Principal Executive and Financial Officer**I, Roy T. Rimmer, Jr., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of TIMCO Aviation Services, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented inthis report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))for the registrant and I have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tome by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) Intentionally omitted.  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.         Date:August 12, 2005            /s/ Roy T. Rimmer, Jr.       Roy T. Rimmer, Jr.      Chief Executive Officer      (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
37
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-1899

___________

Oscar Guthrie, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

M.D. Reed, Warden, Cummins Unit, * Eastern District Arkansas

Arkansas Department of Correction; *

Jonathan Robinson, Teacher, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department *

of Correction (originally sued as J. *

Robertson); B. Glover, Principal, *

Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department *

of Correction; A.J. Hall, Major, *

Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department *

of Correction; D. Harris, Lt., *

Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department *

of Correction; J. Robertson, Kitchen *

Supervisor, Cummins Unit, Arkansas *

Department of Correction; A.D. *

Bradberry, Assistant Warden, *

Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department *

of Correction; Larry Norris, Director, *

Arkansas Department of Correction; *

Justine Minor, Hearing Officer, *

Cummins Unit, Arkansas Department *

of Correction (originally sued as *

Justine Minnor); Louis Walls, *

Correctional Office, Cummins Unit, *

Arkansas Department of Correction *

(originally sued as “L A Walls”), *
1The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable H. David Young, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas.

-2-

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: August 25, 2000

 Filed: September 11, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Oscar Guthrie, an Arkansas inmate, appeals from the final judgment entered in

the District Court1 for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissing this 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). For reversal appellant argues that the

district court erred in concluding that enforcement of a prison grooming regulation does

not violate his constitutional rights. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the

judgment of the district court.

This court has repeatedly upheld similar challenges to prison grooming

regulations, see Campbell v. Purkett, 957 F.2d 535, 536-37 (8th Cir. 1992); Dunavant

v. Moore, 907 F.2d 77, 79 (8th Cir. 1990), and Guthrie’s complaint did not allege any

facts that would distinguish this case from the line of cases upholding hair and beard

restrictions, see Iron Eyes v. Henry, 907 F.2d 810, 814 (8th Cir. 1990) (preventing

prisoners from concealing contraband and alleviating confusion in prisoner
-3-

identification are valid penological interests justifying prison hair-length policy,

although contraband had never been found in any inmate’s hair, and identification fears

were hard to credit in light of prison’s lax approach to photographing inmates).

Therefore, the district court correctly dismissed the complaint for failure to state a

claim.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Guthrie’s “Motion for Issuing a

Restriction Order” is denied.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLE RK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 5 (Friday, January 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 1163]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-314]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Notice of Availability

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service has published a Comprehensive 
Conservation Plan, Environmental Assessment, and a Finding of No 
Significant Impact for Pond Creek National Wildlife Refuge. The plan 
describes how the Fish and Wildlife Service intends to manage the 
refuge for next 15 years.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the above documents may be obtained by writing to 
the Fish and Wildlife Service, Attention: David Erickson, 1875 Century 
Boulevard, Suite 420, Atlanta, Georgia 30345; or Refuge Manager, 
Felsentahal National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 5531 Highway 82W, 
Crossett, Arkansas 71635.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Horning, Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia 30345; Telephone: 
404/679-7116.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By implementing this comprehensive 
conservation plan, the refugee seeks to maintain and restore diverse 
habitats designed to achieve refuge purpose and wildlife population 
objectives; maintain viable, diverse populations of native flora and 
fauna consistent with sound biological principles; protect the area's 
wetlands and restore values through land protection strategies; and 
develop and implement a quality wildlife-dependent recreation program 
that leads to enjoyable recreation experiences and a greater 
understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife resources.

    Dated: December 14, 1999.
H. Dale Hall,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 00-314 Filed 1-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a)**

**UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Alfred J. Novak, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Novoste Corporation; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 8, 2003
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2038 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a presumption of 

herbicide exposure for certain veterans who served in Korea, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 31, 2017 

Mr. MORAN (for himself, Mr. TESTER, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. BROWN, Mr. 

WYDEN, and Ms. COLLINS) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a 

presumption of herbicide exposure for certain veterans 

who served in Korea, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Fairness for Korean 

5 DMZ Veterans Act of 2017’’. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2038 IS

1 SEC. 2. PRESUMPTION OF HERBICIDE EXPOSURE FOR CER2 TAIN VETERANS WHO SERVED IN KOREA. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 11 of title 38, United 

4 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1116 

5 the following new section: 

6 ‘‘§ 1116A. Presumption of herbicide exposure for cer7 tain veterans who served in Korea 

8 ‘‘(a) PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE-CONNECTION.—(1) 

9 For the purposes of section 1110 of this title, and subject 

10 to section 1113 of this title, a disease specified in sub11 section (b) that becomes manifest as specified in that sub12 section in a veteran described in paragraph (2) shall be 

13 considered to have been incurred or aggravated in the line 

14 of duty in the active military, naval, or air service, not15 withstanding that there is no record of evidence of such 

16 disease during the period of such service. 

17 ‘‘(2) A veteran described in this paragraph is a vet18 eran who, during active military, naval, or air service, 

19 served in or near the Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ), 

20 during the period beginning on September 1, 1967, and 

21 ending on August 31, 1971. 

22 ‘‘(b) DISEASES.—A disease specified in this sub23 section is— 

24 ‘‘(1) a disease specified in paragraph (2) of 

25 subsection (a) of section 1116 of this title that be26 comes manifest as specified in that paragraph; or 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2038 IS

1 ‘‘(2) any additional disease that— 

2 ‘‘(A) the Secretary determines in regula3 tions warrants a presumption of service-connec4 tion by reason of having positive association 

5 with exposure to an herbicide agent; and 

6 ‘‘(B) becomes manifest within any period 

7 prescribed in such regulations. 

8 ‘‘(c) HERBICIDE AGENT.—For purposes of this sec9 tion, the term ‘herbicide agent’ has the meaning given 

10 such term in section 1821(d) of this title.’’. 

11 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

12 at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting 

13 after the item relating to section 1116 the following new 

14 item: 

‘‘1116A. Presumption of herbicide exposure for certain veterans who served in 

Korea.’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
!function(e){"use strict";"function"==typeof define&&define.amd?define(["jquery","./version"],e):e(jQuery)}((function(e){"use strict";return e.ui.plugin={add:function(n,i,t){var u,o=e.ui[n].prototype;for(u in t)o.plugins[u]=o.plugins[u]||[],o.plugins[u].push([i,t[u]])},call:function(e,n,i,t){var u,o=e.plugins[n];if(o&&(t||e.element[0].parentNode&&11!==e.element[0].parentNode.nodeType))for(u=0;u<o.length;u++)e.options[o[u][0]]&&o[u][1].apply(e.element,i)}}}));
//# sourceMappingURL=plugin-min.js.map
-78.0 -77.5 -77.0 -76.5

 38.0

 38.5

 39.0

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

06/11

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 11 Jun 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.48 N 77.37 W Meters AGL
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1923 

To prohibit firearms dealers from selling a firearm prior to the completion 

of a background check. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 5, 2017 

Mr. BLUMENTHAL (for himself, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. MURPHY, Ms. WARREN, 

Mr. DURBIN, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. 

MENENDEZ, Mr. REED, Mr. KAINE, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. 

MARKEY, Mr. COONS, Mr. CASEY, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. DUCKWORTH, 

Mr. WYDEN, Ms. HARRIS, Mr. SANDERS, Ms. HASSAN, and Mrs. MURRAY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit firearms dealers from selling a firearm prior 

to the completion of a background check. 

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 ‘‘Background Check 

5 Completion Act of 2017’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMPLETION OF BACKGROUND CHECKS. 

7 Section 922(t)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, 

8 is amended— 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1923 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘(i)’’; 

2 (2) by striking ‘‘; or’’ and inserting ‘‘; and’’; 

3 and 

4 (3) by striking clause (ii). 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
STEAM ELECTRIC CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 200 9-0 819

DCN: SE020 70

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS I NFORMATION

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-60789

GEORGE HUFF,

Petitioner,

VERSUS

FLUOR DRILLING SERVICES, INC.; HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, U.S. DEPT. OF LABOR,

Respondents.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board

(94-3957)

February 9, 1998

Before Davis, Wiener, and Parker, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Huff was injured on October 4, 1982, while working in the

course and scope of his employment for the Fluor Drilling Services,

Inc. (“Fl uor”) under circumstances entitling him to compensation

under the Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compe nsation Act. Fluor

paid temporary total disability compensation from October 5, 1982

through January 7, 1985, the date of maximum medical improvement.Huff subsequently filed a claim for continuing and additional

benefits. On October 11, 1988, Huff and Fluor consented to the

claim being decided on a st ipulated record in lieu of a formal

hearing and on June 23, 1989, the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”)

issued a decision and order denying benefits. Huff appealed to the

Benefits Review Board which issued its decision in May 1992 which

affirmed in part, reversed in part and vacated and remanded the

matter to the ALJ. On June 7, 1994, the ALJ issued his decision

and order after remand which again denied benefits to Huff. Huff

filed a notice of appeal to the Benefits Review Board on September

9, 1994. The parties timely filed briefs, but the Benefits Review

Board failed to take any action on this matter. On September 12,

1996, pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 104-134, the

Benefits Review Board entered an order that this case was

“Considered Affir med.” Huff then timely filed his petition for

review with this court.

After cons idering the briefs and relevant portions of the

record, we conclude that the findings of fact made by the ALJ are

supported by substantial evidence and the conclusions of law

arrived at the ALJ are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the

petition for review is

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                            7482
<SECURITIES>                                     56294
<RECEIVABLES>                                    36785
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2133
<INVENTORY>                                        988
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                102875
<PP&E>                                           21386
<DEPRECIATION>                                   10436
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  126819
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            28747
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         52629
<OTHER-SE>                                       41322
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    126819
<SALES>                                          88310
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 88310
<CGS>                                            15189
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    37740
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 14175
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 823
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  14162
<INCOME-TAX>                                      5250
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               8912
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      8912
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57


</TABLE>