alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-39,597-13

EX P ARTE MANUEL LUP E RIOS, JR., App licant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. W90-54752-U( C) IN THE 291ST DISTRICT COURT

F ROM DALLAS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1

. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim

. Ap p . 1 9 6 7). Applicant was convicted of ag g rava ted robber y and sentenc ed to fifty y ear s’ imprisonment. T h e Fi ft h Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. Rios v. State , No. 05-96-01074- CR (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, pet. dism’d). We rec eived this application on May 7, 2014. Pag e six from the 11.07 form, the pag e for Applicant’s first g round, was not forwa rded with the rec ord. We have no rea son to doubt that when he mailed his applicatio n t o Dallas County , Applicant included pag e six

. I ndeed, the State’s2

response and the trial court’s finding s of fac t and conclusions of law both state that Applicant raised actua l innocence in his first gr ound. The District Clerk’s failure to forwa rd complete rec ords to this Court is not new. We ha ve

even rema

nded habea s applications for live evidentiar y hear ings in response to the District Clerk’s prac tices and policies. Yet the District Clerk, Gar y Fitzsim mons, continues to forwa rd incomplete 1

rec ords. For example, we rec ently rema nded Applicant’s -12 ap p l i cation, a companion case , and order ed Fitzsim mons to file a response an d ex p l ain why Applicant’s memorandum was not forwa rded with the rec ord. Fitzsim mo n s re s p o n d ed that Applicant filed a memorandum with his application, but the memorandum, he said, “wa s not labeled with the corr ect case number(s) .” He also said that he eve ntually located A

pplicant’s memora

ndum under the felony cause number, not the writ number. We are not persua ded by Fitzsim mons’s explanation. Applicant filed a memorandum with the -13 application, and althoug h he put the cause number from the judgme nt on the first pag e of his memorandum, his memorandum was forwa rded with that rec ord. We also question why a document titled, “Memora

ndum in support of application for Writ of Habe as Corpus,” with the cause number from the unde rly ing judg ment, would not be re ceive d and filed a s part of the habea s rec ord. Fitzsim mons shall forwa

rd pag e six from Applicant’s 11.07 form within fiftee n day s of the date of this order. This applica tion will be held in abey ance until the recor d is supplemented. No extensions wil l be g rante d. Filed: September

17, 2014 Do not publish Ex parte W

atson , No. WR-75,170-03 (Tex. Crim. App. May 22, 2013); Ex parte Subia , 1 Nos. WR-79,511-01 & 79,511- 02 (Tex. Crim. App. May 22, 2103); Ex parte Roge rs , No. WR62,774-02 (Te x . Crim. App. May 22, 2013).
ANGA Comments on EPA Methane White Papers

Please find attached the comments of America’s Natural Gas Alliance on EPA’s Methane White Papers. Our letter is 

intended to cover all five of the white papers. 

Thank you,

Jason Smith

America’s Natural Gas Alliance

Manager, Market Development

(o) 202­715­1713

(c) 703­409­5169

701 Eighth Street NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20001

Jason Smith <jsmith@anga.us>

Mon 6/16/2014 4:57 PM

To:OilandGas.Whitepapers <OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov>; 

Cc:Erica Bowman <ebowman@anga.us>; Amy Farrell <afarrell@anga.us>; Brian Kelly <bkelly@anga.us>; Sarah Venuto 

<svenuto@anga.us>; Emily O'Connell <EOConnell@anga.us>; 

 1 attachment

ANGA EPA Methane White Papers letter of support.pdf; 

ANGA Comments on EPA Methane White Papers - OilandGas.Whitepapers Page 1 of 1

https://pod51045.outlook.com/owa/OilandGas.Whitepapers@epa.gov/ 8/26/2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,729
<SECURITIES>                                        36
<RECEIVABLES>                                   90,021
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,812
<INVENTORY>                                     62,086
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               199,560
<PP&E>                                          48,818
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,797
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 385,657
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           76,568
<BONDS>                                         60,650
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        74,014
<OTHER-SE>                                     137,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   385,657
<SALES>                                        312,902
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               312,902
<CGS>                                           58,068
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   58,068
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,747
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   504
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,539
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 84,139
<INCOME-TAX>                                    25,073
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             56,784
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    56,784
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.12
        

</TABLE>
* 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. 98-50596

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CESAR PORRAS-AVILA,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-98-CR-85-ALL-H

- - - - - - - - - -

January 13 ,1999

Before KING, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Cesar Porras-Avila (Porras) appeals his conviction for

importing marijuana. Porras argues that the district court abused

its discretion by refusing to give his requested jury instruction,

which defined the term “knowing possession.” Inasmuch as the

district court admonished the jury on contructive possession, and

the word “knowingly” is used in its common meaning in the

importation statute and, therefore, does not require further

instructions, it was not an abuse of discretion to refuse to

include a definition of knowing possession in the jury 
No. 98-50596

-2-

instructions. See United States v. Pennington, 20 F.3d 593, 598

(5th Cir. 1994); see also United States v. Ojebode, 957 F.2d 1218,

1223 (5th Cir. 1992). 

 The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
 2.
 3.
 4.
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
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 report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and
 5.
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
 Dated: November 3, 2009
    /s/ N. Anthony ColesN. Anthony ColesPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Ex parte NELSON.

No. 16720.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 28, 1934.

W. B. Moss, of Sinton, and J. W. Ragsdale, ■of Victoria, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Appellant, Andrew Scott, and Houston James were charged by complaint with robbery by the use of firearms. After an examining trial they -were remanded by the magistrate to the custody of the sheriff without bail. Upon habeas corpus proceeding before the district judge of San Patricio county on the 16th day of December, 1933, they were each granted bail in the sum of $5,000. On the 29th day of January, 1934, in another 'habeas corpus hearing before the same judge they sought reduction of bail, and from the order declining to reduce the bail this appeal is prosecuted.

Upon the hearing on January 29, 1934, evidence was introduced showing that an ,unsuccessful effort had been made to make bond in the amount fixed by the court, and showing that if the amount should be reduced to $2,500 or $3,000, it was believed sureties could be secured who would furnish bail in that amount.

In determining the amount of bail, the nature of the offense, and the circumstances under which it was committed, aré to be considered, and the ability of accused to make bond is to be regarded. Article 281, C. C. P. The ability or lack thereof to make bond does not alone control. Ex parte Jones, 107 Tex. Cr. R. 438, 296 S. W. 886; Ex parte Turner, 119 Tex. Cr. R. 149, 45 S.W(2d) 1016. The facts incident to the present offense are rather fully developed in the record. Briefly, they show that about 1:30 o’clock at night the three named parties drove into a filling station at Sinton. Two of them, Nelson and Scott, got out of the car, and each presented pistols at the man in charge and took all the money from the station. James remained in the car, which was near the room from which the money was taken. The punishment for such offense may be death or imprisonment in the penitentiary for any term of years not less than five.

In fixing bail the court should make it “sufficiently high to give reasonable assurance that the undertaking will be complied with,” and the power of the court should not t| “be so used as to make it an instrument of oppression.” ’ Article 281, C. C. P. Under the facts and the optional punishment allowed, we discover nothing which leads us to conclude that in refusing to reduce the amount of bail the court has in any way abused his discretion in exercising the power vested in him. See Ex parte Collins, 118 Tex. Cr. R. 146, 38 S.W.(2d) 789, in which this court affirmed a judgment denying bail in a case of robbery by the use of firearms, although no one was killed in the perpetration of the offense.

The judgment is affirmed.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1038 

To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide 

coverage for the shingles vaccine under the Medicare Program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2009 

Ms. HIRONO (for herself, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. EDWARDS

of Maryland, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. 

GRIJALVA, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. 

SLAUGHTER, and Mr. TAYLOR) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 

the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security 

Act to provide coverage for the shingles vaccine under 

the Medicare Program. 

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 ‘‘Shingles Prevention 

5 Act’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1038 IH

1 SEC. 2. COVERAGE OF THE SHINGLES VACCINE UNDER THE 

2 MEDICARE PROGRAM. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861 of the Social Secu4 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended— 

5 (1) in subsection (s)(10)(A), by striking ‘‘pneu6 mococcal vaccine and its administration and,’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘pneumococcal vaccine and its administra8 tion, shingles vaccine and its administration, and’’; 

9 and 

10 (2) in subsection (ww)(2)(A), by inserting 

11 ‘‘shingles,’’ after ‘‘influenza,’’. 

12 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 subsection (a) shall apply to shingles vaccine furnished on 

14 or after January 1 of the first year beginning more than 

15 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                             977
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,602
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     41,371
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                80,160
<PP&E>                                          25,372
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,985
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,368
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           105
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,985
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,087
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,223
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,573
<INCOME-TAX>                                       833
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,740
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,740
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-20304 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE GOMEZ-CASTELLON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-01-CR-746-ALL

-------------------- December 12, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Gomez-Castellon (“Gomez”) appeals from his conviction and sentence for illegal reentry into the United States after commission of an aggravated felony. His sole argument on appeal is that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b), which was used to enhance his sentence based on his prior aggravated felony conviction, is unconstitutional. Gomez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he seeks to preserveNo. 02-20304 -2- the issue for Supreme Court review in light of the decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90, 496; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied , 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). Gomez’s argument is foreclosed. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


             REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ON SCHEDULE
             ----------------------------------------------------



We have audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the 
consolidated financial statements of Information Management Associates, Inc. 
included in this Form 10-K and have issued our report thereon dated March 3, 
1999.  Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic 
financial statements taken as a whole.  The schedule listed in the index to 
consolidated financial statements is the responsibility of the Company's 
management and is presented for purposes of complying with the Securities and 
Exchange Commissions rules and is not part of the basic financial statements.  
This schedule has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit
of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, fairly states in all 
material respects the financial data required to be set forth therein in 
relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.

         
                                              ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



Hartford, Connecticut
March 3, 1999
#### CAFFEY v. STATE.

No. 15406.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 25, 1932.

T. H. Briggs, of Gilmer, for appellant.

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

HÁWKINS, J.

Conviction is for tbe possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale; punishment being one year in tbe penitentiary.

Tbe record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

Tbe judgment is affirmed.
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 this  Quarterly  Report  of  UnionBanCal  Corporation  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending  September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Norimichi Kanari, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  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:

     (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 Company.



Dated:  November 5, 2004





                                    By:        /S/ NORIMICHI KANARI
                                       --------------------------------------
                                                   Norimichi Kanari
                                               Chief Executive Officer
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1963 

To amend title 11, United States Code, to include certain pension as 

administrative expenses in bankruptcy, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 16, 2017 

Mr. MANCHIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 11, United States Code, to include certain 

pension as administrative expenses in bankruptcy, 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 ‘‘Prioritizing Our Work5 ers Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ALLOWANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 503(b) of title 11, United 

8 States Code, is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (8)(B), by striking ‘‘and’’ at 

10 the end; 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1963 IS

1 (2) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at 

2 the end and inserting a semicolon; and 

3 (3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the fol4 lowing: 

5 ‘‘(10) notwithstanding section 507(a)(5), all un6 funded vested benefits in a defined benefit pension 

7 plan; and 

8 ‘‘(11) withdrawal liability determined under 

9 part 1 of subtitle E of title IV of the Employee Re10 tirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 

11 1381 et seq.).’’. 

12 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 507(a)(5) 

13 is amended by inserting ‘‘except as provided in section 

14 503(b)(10),’’ after ‘‘Fifth,’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
Take notice that on January 31, 2000, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company (Midwestern) tendered for filing its sixth annual cashout report for the September 1998 through August 1999 period.

Midwestern states that the cashout report reflects a cashout gain during this period of $5,742. Midwestern's cumulative losses from its cashout mechanism are thereby reduced to $191,532. Midwestern states that it will roll forward this loss into its next annual cashout report.

Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before February 11, 2000. 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 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).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-3047  Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M