alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0099 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MATTHEW MORGAN MAYS,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including July 1 9 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 13 2023

06/13/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0099
# ELECTRONIC RECORD
COA # 02-14-00344-CR OFFENSE: 22.01 Antonio Leonard Brown v. The 

# STYLE: stateofTexas COUNTY: Wichita 

# %vt-is

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 89th District Court 

### DATE: 06/18/2015 Publish: YES TC CASE #: 53,525-C



## IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Antonio Leonard Brown v. STYLE: ofTexas The State 

### Petition 

# CCA#: fll7#/5^ appellant's, FORDISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

### CCA Disposition: DATE: 

# ^^f^ifp JUDGE: 

# DATE: /v/vy/jO'S JUDGE: fjbL Uajuui^. SIGNED: PC: PUBLISH: DNP:
MOTION FOR REHEARING IN CCA IS: JUDGE: 

### ELECTRONIC RECORD
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In The Matter of World Logistics Solutions, LLC. 

20 14-GL-70-0263 

Judge Not Assigned 

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 

FEB 2 6 2015 

IN·r::: C)or·v.cT I '\.:A - ..,_ v~ \J::.' 

Complainant, Federal Aviation Administration, hereby notifies the United States Department of 

Transportation, Office of Hearings, and the Respondent, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. §13.204(b), that it 

shall be represented in the above-stated action by the following attorney: 

Kate Barber 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2300 East Devon Avenue, AGL-7 

Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 

84 7/294-7862 

Fax: 847/294-7498 

All communications, notices, pleadings or documents are respectfully requested to be forwarded as 

follows: 

Kate Barber 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2300 East Devon Avenue, AGL-7 

Des Plaines, lllinois 60018 

84 7/294-7862 

Fax: 847/294-7498 

Respectfully submitted, 

Kate Barber 

Attorney 

.. / 

Dated: ·t;l~~~~ 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this day copies of the foregoing Notice of Appearance were sent Overnight 

Mail as follows: 

Overnight Mail 

Overnight Mail 

(Original and one Copy) 

Armelina Elhassani, Principal 

Viabox 

25883 N. Park Avenue 

Elkhart, Indiana 46514 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Attu: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building, Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Office of Regional Counsel 

2300 East Devon Avenue, AGL-7 

Des Plaines, Illinois 60018 

1
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 190 (Tuesday, October 1, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 79937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22510]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; Career Awards (Ks) and 
Conference Support (R13) Review.
    Date: November 7, 2024.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Democracy II, Suite 200, 
6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20817.
    Meeting Format: Virtual Meeting.
    Contact Person: Alexander O. Komendantov, MS, Ph.D., Scientific 
Review Officer, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., 
Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-3397, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, 
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 
National Institutes of Health.)

    Dated: September 25, 2024.
Victoria E. Townsend,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-22510 Filed 9-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
E L~TNDRNEU GENERAL 

OF-XAS 

Auwrrlv. TEXAS 78711 

February 28, 1972 

Honorable James U. Cross 

Executive Director, Texas 

Opinion No. M- 1084 

Parks and Wildlife Department 

John H., Reagan Building 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Re: Purchase of whitewinged dove habitat. 

Dear Mr. Cross: 

You aek whether Article 87ga-6, Sec. 4(c), Vernon'E! 

Penal Code, and the current ffeneral Appropriation Act,* 

authorize@ your Department to expend any moniee for the 

acquisition of a white-winged dove habitat. 

Our anewer is! that the authority contained in thle 

Article of the Penal Code is sufficient pre-existing law 

under Article III, Section 44 of our Constitution to 

support an appropriation for this purpoee. 

However, neither your Department, nor our office, 

find any appropriation of monie& in the current General 

Appropriation Act for this purpose. 

Therefore your Department ie not authorized to expend 

any monies for this purpose. Tex.Con&t., Art.VIII, Sec. 6. 

-SUMMARYNo appropriation of funds exists for acqui- 

&ition of a white-winged dove habitat authorized 

by Article 87ga-6, Sec. 4(c), V.P.C. 

*S.B. 11, Acts 62nd Leg., 1971, R.S., aL! amended by 

S.B. 7, Acts 62nd Leg., 1971, 1st C.S. 

-5300- 
Honorable James U. Crose, page 2 (M-1084) 

Prepared by Dunklln Sullivan 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Kerna Taylor, Chairman 

Bill Allen, Co-Chairman 

John Reeves 

Llnward Shivers 

Bob Flowere 

Rex H. White, Jr. 

SAMUEL D. MCDANIEL 

Staff Legal Assistant. 

ALFRED WALKER 

Executive Assistant 

NOLA WHITE 

First Aeelstant 

-5301-
#### COBB v. STATE.

No. 20354.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 5, 1939.

Wallace B. Moore, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for theft of property under the value of fifty dollars, punishment assessed being confinement in the county jail for a period of thirty days.

The complaint and information properly charged the offense. No statement of facts or bills of exception are found in the record. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 51053 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JOEL LOMAS

- TORRES , Defendant

- Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:15

- CR

- 282

- 1

Before SMITH, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Joel Lomas

- Torres appeals the 27

- month above

- guidelines sentence imposed in connection with his conviction for illegal reentry after deportation. Lomas

- Torres challenges the substantive reasonableness of his sentence, arguing that the sentence is greater than necessary to satisfy the se ntencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). He contends that the court based the variance on

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 9, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-51053 Document: 00513629405 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2016No. 15

- 51053

2 old convictions. He further asserts that the court failed to consider mitigating factors regarding his reason for returning to the United States

. Because Lomas

- Torre s failed to object to the reasonableness of his sentence, review is for plain error. See United States v. Peltier , 505 F.3d 389, 391

- 92 (5th Cir. 2007). 1 In reviewing a non

- guidelines sentence for substantive reasonableness, we consider “the totality of the circumstances, including the

e xtent of any variance from the G uidelines range, to determine whether as a matter of substance, the sentencing factors in section 3553(a) support the sentence.” United States v. Gerezano

- Rosales , 692 F.3d 393, 400 (5th Ci r. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). When imposing Lomas

- Torres ’s sentence, the district court assessed the facts and provided specific reasons consistent with the § 3553(a) factors to support its determination that a sentence outside of the guidelines range was necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing. The record establishes that the district court considered Lomas

- Torres ’s mitigating facts but concluded that an above

- guidelines sentence was nevertheless warranted in light of othe r factors set forth in § 3553(a). Under the totality of the circumstances, including the significant deference that is given to the district court’s consideration of the § 3553(a) factors and the district court’s reasons for its sentencing decision, Lomas

- Torres fails to show that the district court erred , plainly or otherwise, in imposing his 27

- month above

- guidelines sentence. See Puckett v. United States , 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); see Gerezano

- Rosales , 692 F.3d at 400

- 01. The judgment of the district c ourt is AFFIRMED.

1 Lomas

- Torres acknowledges our precedent, but notes that the circuits are divided on this point and therefore wishes to preserve th e issue for possible review by the Supreme Court. Case: 15-51053 Document: 00513629405 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2016
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-2417MN

_____________

Andrew John Virnig, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the District

* of Minnesota.

State of Minnesota; Morrison County *

District Court; Thomas Godzala, sued as* [UNPUBLISHED]

Hon. Thomas A. Godzala, Judge of *

District Court, *

*

Appellees. *

_____________

 Submitted: March 12, 1999

Filed: March 18, 1999

_____________

Before FAGG, LAY, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Andrew John Virnig appeals the district court's dismissal of Virnig's petition

for writ of habeas corpus because the petition was not filed within the one-year period

required by statute. Based on the courts recent decision in Smith v. Bowersox, 159

F.3d 345 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 1999 WL 14963 (U.S. Mar. 1, 1999) (No. 98-

1127), we conclude Virnig's habeas corpus petition was timely filed. We thus reverse

the district court's order and remand the case for reinstatement of Virnig's petition and

for further proceedings. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
-2-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7628

CHARLES WAKEFIELD, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CHARLES MOLONY CONDON, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-2131-6-8AK) Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 21, 1999 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Wakefield, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald J. Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Charles Wakefield, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny acertificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Wakefield v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corrections , No. CA-97-2131-6-8AK (D.S.C. Oct. 20, 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
#### Wm. L. THORNTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 20978.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 31, 1940.

No attorney for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of arson, and his punishment assessed at two years confinement in the penitentiary.

Since his appeal was perfected, the appellant has filed a written request, verified by his affidavit, asking the privilege of withdrawing his appeal. The request is granted and the appeal ordered dismissed.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C., ss.1350 AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sunrise Holdings Limited
(the "Company") for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:





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 Sunrise Holdings
Limited.








Date:
      July 30, 2010
            
            
            /s/
      Shaojun SunShaojun Sun, Chief Financial
Officer
#### WRIGHT v. SAN JACINTO TRUST CO.

No. 6541.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 24, 1933.

Snell & Aynesworth, of Houston, for plaintiff.

Andrews, Streetman, Logue & Mobley and T. A. Slack, all of Houston, for defendant.

CURETON, Chief Justice.

This case is here under the provisions of Senate Bill No. 173 (Acts 1933, c. 71 [Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 1851a]), recently enacted by the Legislature, providing for certificates by trial courts to the Courts of Civil Appeals, and by the latter to the Supreme Court, certifying questions involving the constitutionality of statutes when raised in cases pending which have not been tried and are undis-posed of in the trial courts. This measure, in so far as involved in this case, is set out in the opinion in the case of Morrow v. Corbin (Tex. Sup.) 62 S.W.(2d) 641, this day decided, but not yet reported [in State Report], and it is unnecessary to again state the terms of the enactment.

The facts of the instant case are briefly as follows:

The defendant, the San Jacinto Trust Company, is trustee in a certain deed of trust covering real property in the city of Houston, executed to secure an indebtedness due and unpaid of some $3,300. The trust company advertised the property for sale under the deed of trust in order to satisfy the debt and lien, to secure which it was executed; whereupon the plaintiff in this action filed suit for an extension of the lien in accordance with the terms of a recent act of the Legislature, House Bill No. 231 (Acts 1933, c. 102 [Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 2218b]), known as the Judicial Extension or Moratorium Act, effective May 1, 1933. The plaintiff prayed for a temporary injunction to stay the sale which had previously been advertised. The trial court issued a restraining order, and set the application for temporary injunction down for hearing. The trust company filed an answer, in which it was urged that the Stay or Judicial Extension Law invoked by the plaintiff was unconstitutional and void. No further action appears to have been taken. The case simply stands- in the trial court for a hearing without the entry of any decree or any appeal from any order. At this stage of the case the trial court certified five questions to the Court of Civil Appeals as to the constitutionality of the Stay or Judicial Extension Act.

We have to-day held that, in so far as involved in the instant case, the act of the Legislature authorizing certified questions from the district courts to the Courts of Civil Appeals, and from the latter to this court, issued prior to any judgment or decree from which an appeal might lie from the district court to the Court of Civil Appeals, is void. Morrow v. Corbin (Tex. Sup.) 62 S.W.(2d) 641, not yet reported [in State Report], and cases therein cited.

We therefore have no jurisdiction of the cause before us, and under rule 17, Rules of the Supreme Court, it is our duty to dismiss the certificate of the Court of Civil Appeals, which is accordingly done.
#### JANUARY v. STATE.

No. 15559.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 19, 1932.

Earl M. Greer, of Wills Point, for appellant

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

CALHOUN, J.

The offense, possessing a still for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor; the punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

The. record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No defect either in the indictment or procedure has been pointed out or has been perceived. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission oí Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 25, 2013

h0617

Order 

Clerk

June 25, 2013

146144(108)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146144

COA: 303683

Macomb CC: 2010-003875-FC

ROBERT EARL PARKS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s April 1, 2013 

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
V 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3469 

For the relief of Beloved Jefeti. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 

Mrs. DAVIS of California introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Beloved Jefeti. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR BELOVED 

4 JEFETI. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

6 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

7 Act, Beloved Jefeti shall be eligible for issuance of an im8 migrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an alien 

9 lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing an 

10 application for issuance of an immigrant visa under sec11 tion 204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful 

12 permanent resident. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3469 IH

1 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Beloved Jefeti en2 ters the United States before the filing deadline specified 

3 in subsection (c), he shall be considered to have entered 

4 and remained lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be 

5 eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 

6 Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the en7 actment of this Act. 

8 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

9 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap10 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica11 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

12 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

13 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

14 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res15 idence to Beloved Jefeti, the Secretary of State shall in16 struct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current 

17 or next following fiscal year, the total number of immi18 grant visas that are made available to natives of the coun19 try of the alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the Immi20 gration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total 

21 number of immigrant visas that are made available to na22 tives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 

23 202(e) of such Act. 

24 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

25 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3469 IH

1 parents, brothers, and sisters of Beloved Jefeti shall not, 

2 by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any right, privi3 lege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
|   | (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 result of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: August 13, 2010 |   |   | /s/ Steven G.      Wollach                                                    |   |
|----------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                       |   |   | Steven      G. Wollach                                                        |   |
|                       |   |   | Chief      Financial Officer(Principal      Financial and Accounting Officer) |   |

----
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Charmed Homes Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Ian Quinn, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial 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:

(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 14th day of June, 2007.



| | IAN QUINN                                          
| | ---------------------------------------------------
| | Ian Quinn                                          
| | Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer