alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2795 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a study on the 

circumstances which may impact the effectiveness and availability of 

first responders before, during, or after a terrorist threat or event. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 16, 2015 

Ms. JACKSON LEE (for herself, Mr. PAYNE, Ms. FUDGE, Ms. KELLY of Illinois, Mrs. BEATTY, Mr. PASCRELL, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Mr. NORCROSS, Mr. CASTRO of Texas, Mr. GENE GREEN of 

Texas, Ms. BASS, Ms. LEE, Mr. HINOJOSA, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit 

a study on the circumstances which may impact the 

effectiveness and availability of first responders before, 

during, or after a terrorist threat or event. 

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 ‘‘First Responder Iden5 tification of Emergency Needs in Disaster Situations’’ or 

6 the ‘‘FRIENDS Act’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2795 IH

1 SEC. 2. CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MAY IMPACT FIRST RE2 SPONDERS DURING A TERRORIST EVENT. 

3 Not later than 260 days after the date of the enact4 ment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 

5 submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the 

6 House of Representatives and the Committee on Home7 land Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a 

8 report on factors that would result in first responders fail9 ing to meet expectations based upon training and planning 

10 for terrorist incidents. The report— 

11 (1) may include information on first responder 

12 performance and availability before, during, or after 

13 a terrorist threat or event; and 

14 (2) shall— 

15 (A) include first responder input on how 

16 the presence of family in the impacted area, the 

17 adequacy of personal protective equipment, and 

18 training gaps may influence performance and 

19 availability; and 

20 (B) contain recommendations to the Com21 mittee on Homeland Security of the House of 

22 Representatives and the Committee on Home23 land Security and Governmental Affairs of the 

24 Senate. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

July 11, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00131

- CV

Lorraine KENYON , Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Theodore Kenyon

, Appellants

v.

ELEPHANT INSURANCE COMPANY, LLC

,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CI14055 Honorable Michael E. Mery, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The notification of late record filed by the court reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal is NOTED. The reporter’s record must be filed no later than July 13, 2018

.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 11th day of July, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-16-0000811

20-APR-2017

08:33 AM
ATTACHMENT A – Part II, Section A, 1, d. - SANITIZED

The HallStar Company

Page 1

C

O

N

F

I

D

E

N

T

I

A

L

PART II, SECTION A, QUESTION (1)(d).

1. d. (1)
ATTACHMENT A – Part II, Section A, 1, d. - SANITIZED

The HallStar Company

Page 2

d.(2) - (weight is per batch)

d.(3)


UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6544

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LESLIE FRANKLIN EVANS, III,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CR-95-192, CA-97-637-2)

Submitted: August 11, 1998 Decided: September 9, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Lee Collins, Sr., Dobson, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Kevin Michael Comstock, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Evans, Nos. CR-95-192; CA-97-637-2 (E.D.

Va. Mar. 18, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Paradise, Inc. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Melvin S. Gordon                           |                                              |   |
|------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Melvin S. Gordon                               |                                              |
| Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and Director | Date:  March 30, 2011    |

----
Appeal Reinstated and Order filed November 6, 2012. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-11-00739-CV

____________

KEN S. OGBONNIA D/B/A FIRST TEXAS ENERGY, Appellant

V.

AT&T ADVERTISING, LP, Appellee

On Appeal from the Co Civil Ct at Law No 2

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 988333

O R D E R

On May 22, 2012, this court abated this appeal so that the corporate appellant, 

First Texas Energy Corporation, could retain counsel. To date, no attorney has filed a 

notice of appearance. On July 26, 2012, this court granted appellant a final extension of 

time to file appellant=s corrected brief until August 27, 2012. In its order, the court stated 

that appellant may proceed pro se in his individual appeal if he has been unable to obtain 

counsel. On September 24, 2012, appellant filed a response to this court’s order stating 

that he did not receive the July 26, 2012 order, and did not know it had issued until he 

called to inquire about his extension request. He then picked up a copy of the order on 
2

September 19, 2012. To date, appellant has not filed a brief or a further motion for 

extension of time in response to the order. Accordingly, we REINSTATE the appeal and 

issue the following order:

Unless appellant files a corrected brief with the clerk of this court on or before

November 26, 2012, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 42.3(b). No further extensions of time will be granted.

PER CURIAM
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 15 - 00030 - CR

TRISTON RAY MCDONALD APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 371ST DISTR ICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO. 1244 269D

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- Appellant Triston Ray McDonald appeals the trial court’s judgment adjudicating him guilty of the offense of deadly conduct and sentencing him to ten years’ confinement

. We affirm. Appellant pled guilty to deadly conduct pursuant to a p lea bargain. The trial court followed the plea bargain and placed appellant on deferred

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2 adjudication community supervision for four years

. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate alleging that appellant had committed three new offenses, inclu ding aggravated assault by threatening his girlfriend with a firearm. The State also alleged that appellant violated the terms of his community supervision by possessing a firearm. After hearing evidence, the trial court found that appellant had committe d the new offense of aggravated assault and that
appe llant had possessed a firearm. The trial court revoked appellant’s deferred adjudication community supervision and rendered a judgment adjudicatin g him guilty of deadly conduct. Appellant’s court

- appoin ted counsel has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel and a brief in support of that motion. In the brief, counsel states that in his opinion the appeal is frivolous and that th ere are no grounds that could be argued successfully on appeal. Counsel ’ s bri ef and motion meet the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. 386 U.S. 738, 744

– 45, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967) ; see In re Schulman , 252 S. W.3d 403, 406

– 12 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (orig. proceeding). Although we gave appellant an opportunity to file a pro se response to the Anders brief , he did not do so. The State declined to f ile a brief. Once an appellant ’ s court

- appointed attorney files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an appeal is frivolous and fulfills the requirements of Anders , w e must independently examine the record. Se e Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503,3 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)

. Only then may we grant counsel’ s motion to withdraw. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 82

– 83, 109 S. Ct. 346, 351 (1988)

. We have careful ly reviewed the record and counsel’ s brief, and we agree with counsel that th is appeal is frivolous and without merit; we find nothing in the record that might a rguably support the appeal. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ; see also Meza v. State , 206 S.W.3d 684, 685 n.6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)

. Accordingly, we grant counsel ’ s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court ’ s judgm ent.

PER CURIAM PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GABRIEL and SUDDERTH, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: October 29, 2015
# MESABAAIRLINES

June 28, 2011

Mr. Dennis DeVany Chief, EAS & DomesticAnalysis Division Office ofAviation Analysis Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

### Re: EAS at Muscle Shoals, Alabama Docket DOT-OST-2000-7856 

### i

## 1: 3CJ

Tothe extent necessary, Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. ("Pinnacle") and Mesaba Aviation, Inc., d/b/a Mesaba Airlines, Inc. ("Mesaba")jointly request that either carrier be deemed eligible to receive the EAS compensation established by Order2011-1-24. Pinnacle and Mesaba are now both wholly owned subsidiaries ofthe holding corporation, Pinnacle Airlines, Corp. Both carriers currently operate and will continue to operate as "Delta Connection" carriers. Flights operated by Mesaba would use Saab 340 aircraft, and flights operated by Pinnacle would use 50 seat CRJ200 Regional JetAircraft. Mesaba and Pinnacle seek to provide EAS service on an interim basis pursuant to the rates established by Order 2011-1-24, and without prejudice to their ability to seek new EAS rates for CRJ200 service once the longerterm fleet plans ofthe respective carriers are established. The community of Muscle Shoals has indicated that it supports this request. Sincerely,

# ec&;~'-~ Maximillian T. Shemesh General Counsel Mesaba Aviation, Inc. 651-367-5218 Max.Shemesh@mesaba.com

cc: mayor@hiwaay.net matthewhea@gmail.com

1000 BLUE GENTIAN ROAD, SUITE 200, EAGAN,

### MN 55121-1679
Exhibit 23
 Consent of Ernst & Young LLP
Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
  (1)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-109682) of Spartech Corporation and subsidiaries,
and
 (2)
    
    Registration Statement (Form S-8 Nos. 333-60316, 333-60381, 333-30878, 333-113752, and
333-160638) of Spartech Corporation and subsidiaries of our reports dated January 13, 2011,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Spartech Corporation and
subsidiaries and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Spartech
Corporation and subsidiaries, included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
October 30, 2010.
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLPSt. Louis, MissouriJanuary 13, 2011
Exhibit
      32.2








**Chief
      Financial Officer’s Certification required under Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the quarterly report of TIB Financial Corp. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, David P. Johnson, Executive Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Report fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 and that, to my knowledge, the information contained in the Report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operation of the Company.








Date: August
                8, 2006
            /s/
                David P. JohnsonDavid
                P. Johnson
              Executive
                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer











A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to TIB Financial Corp. and will be retained
      by
      TIB Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.
# C_2022074EN.01000101.xml

| 15.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 74/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10596 – OTPP / KKR / GREENCOLLAR)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 74/01)

On 7 February 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10596. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10596. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
p. 1


# OAR Box 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 145 ) ll-K - (B ) -14 4 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:53 AM Sheet 145of 325P. 2


# J ~ L— I ENERG

YAN D ENVIRONMENTA

L ANALYSIS

, ll > A - WX- 9 7
II-K-CB)-lV f Jul y5 , 198 4

Mr . Rober t Shor t Economi c Analysi s Branc h U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Mai l Drop-1 2 Researc hTriangl e Park , N C 2771 1 Subject : EP

AContrac t No . 68-02-3564 , Wor k Assignmen t #1 9 St hRoun

d S0 2 NSP S IFCA

M Run s Dea r Robert : Attache d i s a lis t o f recen t IFCA M nodifications . Sincerely ,
Ti mHoga n TH/c e Enclosur e cc : Dr . A . Weh e .

Economic s / En g i nee r ing• • • ' V

IFCA M MODIFICATION S INMAY/JUNE 198 4

1 . Lime spra

ydrying FG

D system s availabilit yestimat e wa s revise d fro m9 5 percen t t o 9 0 percent . Thi s raise s the annua l fue l cost s an d lower s the annua l averag e S0

_emissio n rat e estimat e becaus e i t i s assume d tha t natura l ga s i s burne d whe n the scrubbe r i s no t avail
able . 2 . Lime spra

ydrying FGD system s ar e restricte d onl yt o lo wsulfu r coal s (ICF coa l type s B an d D , les s tha n 1.6 7 l b S0 2 /MMBtu) . Theyar e no t a contro l optio n fo r mediu man d highsulfu r coa l type s regardles s o f th e require d sulfu r remova l rate . Previously , thi s technolog ywa s applicabl e t o al l coa l types . 3 . Th e sodiu

m(NATH ) scrubbe r capita l an d annua l 0§ M cos t algorithm s hav e bee n revise d b yRadia n Corporation . 4 . "Interes t during construction " (IDC ) estimate s hav e bee n adde d t o the aggregat e annualize d cos t outpu t tables . Previously , IDC had no t bee n estimated . Th e ID C estimate s rang e fro m3. 3 t o 13. 6 percen t o f tota l capita l costs . 5 . ICF coa l typ e A(<0. 8 l b S0 2 /MMBtu ) ha s bee n delete d i n al l regions . 6 . Th e delivere d industria l coa l pric e projection s wer e revise d b yICF Incorporated . Tw o ne wsubbituminou s coa l type s wer e als o adde d i n Federa l region s 5 (Midwest) , 6 (Southwest ) an d 9 (West) . Referenc e memorandu

mfro mC . Eber t (ICF Incorporated ) t o J . Greenwal d (EPA) . Revise d Industria l Coa l Price s fo r Industria l NSP S Analyses . May31 , 1984 .
#### CARTER v. STATE.

No. 18546.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1936.

John Morrison, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is attempting to pass a. forged instrument; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The instrument upon which the conviction is predicated purports to be a receipt for the sum of $20 paid by a certain bank. The instrument is signed, J. W. Carter, which is the same name as that of the appellant. There are no innuendo averments in the indictment showing how the instrument is a forgery by being signed by the appellant.

It seems to he a rule of law that in indictments for forgery where the alleged forged instrument bears the same name or signature as that of the accused, it is necessary that there be some explanatory averments as would show that the instrument was in fact a forgery. See Hancock v. State, 123 Tex.Cr.R. 16, 57 S.W.(2d) 111; Carnahan v. State, 110 Tex.Cr.R. 550, *9*S.W.(2d) 1034, 1035. In order to be forgery, the instrument must purport to be the act of another. See article 979, P.C.

The state’s attorney before this court calls attention to the foregoing, and in addition concedes that the facts proved do not support the conviction as the testimony on the subject was to the effect that J. W. Carter signed his own name to the alleged forged instrument; and there is no testimony showing the instrument to be a forgery, notwithstanding it was signed by the appellant.

For the reasons stated, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
#### CURBOW v. STATE.

No. 20575.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 8, 1939.

Gray & Pope, of Tyler, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The offense is robbery; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for a period of thirty years.

The record fails to show that notice of appeal was given- and entered upon the minutes of the trial court. In the absence of such a showing, this court is without jurisdiction to determine the matters presented for review. See Art. 827, C.C.P.; also Brown v. State, 136 Tex.Cr.R. 61, 124 S.W.2d 124; Scott v. State, 135 Tex. Cr.R. 324, 119 S.W.2d 884, and cases cited.

The appeal is dismissed.
# C_2022356EN.01000201.xml

| 16.9.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 356/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.9.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 356/2

---

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union

(2022/C 356/02)

Pursuant to Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union (2) are hereby amended as follows:

On page 379, the following explanatory note is inserted:

| ‘8711 60 10 | Bicycles, tricycles and quadricycles, with pedal assistance, with an auxiliary electric motor with a continuous rated power not exceeding 250 watts |
| --- | --- |

‘8711 60 10

Bicycles, tricycles and quadricycles, with pedal assistance, with an auxiliary electric motor with a continuous rated power not exceeding 250 watts

This subheading includes electric cycles with pedals, which offer different “modes of riding” that can be chosen from: a) pedal assistance with an auxiliary electric motor mode, b) full pedal mode (without any aid of the electric motor) or c) full electric motor mode. The mode can be changed, for example, by a control unit mounted at the handlebar of the bicycle or via a mobile phone application.

| 8711 60 90 | Other |
| --- | --- |

8711 60 90

Other

The explanatory note to subheading 8711 60 10 applies, mutatis mutandis, to cycles, with pedal assistance, with an auxiliary electric motor.’

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1).

1

(2)  OJ C 119, 29.3.2019, p. 1.

2

---