alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 13, 2020.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00146-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF ESTANISLADA RODRIGUEZ, DECEASED

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12-CPR-025070

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted appeal from an order signed February 1, 2019, for the 

dependent administrator Terry Garcia to pay attorney’s fees and expenses. On July 

15, 2020, this court informed the parties that it would consider dismissal of the 

appeal on its own motion for want of jurisdiction, see Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a),

because the record reflects that the order is interlocutory and not appealable under 

Dumitrov v. Hitt, 601 S.W.2d 472, 473 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1980, 

writ ref’d n.r.e.) (applying the predecessor of Tex. Estates Code § 352.051; 

reasoning that the “approval of such an expense by the probate court is not a final 
2

judgment; that order may be reviewed and corrected in a settlement of the final 

account”).

This court notified the parties that the appeal would be dismissed unless any 

party filed a response on or before July 27, 2020, showing meritorious grounds for 

continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(c). No party filed a response.

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Wise, and Zimmerer.
Regional Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Region 4 

61 Forsyth Street, S.W. 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8909 

Dear Ms. Toney: 

Re: Mississippi Updated Designation Recommendation for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Standard Consent 

Decree 

In accordance with the Federal Clean Air Act and the consent decree issued by the U.S. District Court for 

the Northern District of California on March 2, 2015, I am providing an updated recommendation for the 

State of Mississippi's designation for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2010 national 

ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide (S02). 

EPA identified the South Mississippi Electric Power Association (SMEPA) R.D. Morrow, Sr. Generating 

Plant located in Lamar County as the only source in the state that met the criteria established in the 

consent decree. In order to meet the consent decree requirements, SMEPA coordinated with the 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to perform an air emissions dispersion 

modeling analysis to determine the attainment status for the affected area. The attached modeling 

report results state that the facility attained the 75 parts per billion (ppb) 1-hour S02 standard for the 

2012-2014 period by reporting a concentration of 56 ppb. 

Therefore, I request that EPA designate SMEPA and Lamar County as unclassifiable/attainment based on 

the modeling results. If you have any questions, please contact Jerry Beasley at 

jbeasley@deq.state.ms.us or at (601) 961-5134. 

Sincerely, 

Attachment 

Clit

~~ 

Cc: Mr. Gary Rikard, Executive Director, MDEQ 

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI • OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

POST OFFICE BOX 139 • JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI 39205 • TELEPHONE: (601) 359-3150 • FAX: (601) 359-3 741 • www.governorbryant.com
* Based on external data file CUTPOINT.D (SEE P. 16&17 OF EPA REPORT M6.IM.001)
* I/M240 cutpoints for 2011 calendar year model runs
* First year is MY2011

I/M CUTPOINTS
* Block 1 (LDGV, LDGT1)
  0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   
  0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   0.800   1.200   1.200   1.200   1.200   
  1.200   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000      
 15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  
 15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  15.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000
 20.000  30.000  30.000  30.000  30.000  
  2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000  
  2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.000   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500
  2.500   3.000   3.000   3.000   3.000   

* Block 2 (LDGT2, LDGT3)
  1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000
  1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   1.000   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400    
  2.400   3.200   3.200   3.200   3.200     
 20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000
 20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  20.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  
 60.000  80.000  80.000  80.000  80.000   
  2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500 
  2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   2.500   3.000   3.000   3.000   3.000    
  3.000   3.500   3.500   3.500   7.000   

* Block 3 (LDGT4)
  2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400
  2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400  
  2.400   3.200   3.200   3.200   3.200     
 60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000
 60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  
 60.000  80.000  80.000  80.000  80.000  
  4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000
  4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.500   4.500   4.500   4.500     
  4.500   5.000   5.000   5.000   7.000  

* Block 4 (HDGV)
  2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400
  2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400   2.400  
  2.400   3.200   3.200   3.200   3.200     
 60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000
 60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  60.000  
 60.000  80.000  80.000  80.000  80.000  
  4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000
  4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.000   4.500   4.500   4.500   4.500     
  4.500   5.000   5.000   5.000   7.000
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

ON REHEARING
NO. 03-12-00832- CR

Adam P erkins, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F B ELL COUNTY , 264 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 614 79, H ONO RAB LE MARTH A J. TRUDO , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
We withdraw our opin ion and judgme nt dated J anuar y 25, 2013 and substitut e the following in its pl ace .

Perkins pleade d g uilty to the felony offe n s e of indece ncy with a child by
co n t ac t, and on J une 28, 2008, the trial court sentenc ed him to twelve y ear s’ imprisonment. On 1 November 19, 2012, Perkins filed a notice of appea l from the trial court’s denial of his “application for writ of habea s corpus.” We construe Perkins’s appea l as challeng ing the d en i al of his 2

The trial cou rt ce rt i fi ed t h at this is a plea barg ain case in which Perkins has no rig ht of 1 appea l and that Perkins waive d the rig ht of appe al. Perki n s ca p t i oned his reque st for a fre e copy of his trial rec ords as an “application for 2 writ of habeas corp u s . ” I n re s ponse, t he trial court iss ued findings of fac t and conclusions of l aw combined with an or der de ny ing a ll of Perkins’s reque sted relief
.reque st for a fre e trial rec ord for use in pre p ar ing a postconviction habea s application. See In re

B la c k , N o s . 1 2
- 1 2
- 0 0 0 4 8
- CR , 1 2
- 1 2
- 0 0 0 4 9
- CR , 1 2 -12-00050- CR, 1 2
- 1 2
- 0 0 0 5 1
- CR , 2 0 1 2 T e x. A p p . L EXI S 845, at * 1 (Tex. App.—Ty ler Jan. 31, 2012, orig . proce eding ) (mem. op.) (not designa ted for publica tion).

The district court’s ref

usal to provide Perkins with a fre e copy of his trial rec ord does not invoke our jurisdiction. See Self v. State , 122 S.W .3d 294, 294-95 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2003,
no pet.); see also Diaz v. S t a t e , No. 07-10-00328- CV, 2011 Tex. App. L EXI S 1985, at *3 (Tex. App.—Amar illo J an. 21, 2011, pet. ref ’d) (mem. op.). W e l ac k j u risdiction to consider an appea l from an order deny ing a reque st for a fr ee co p y o f the trial rec ord when, as here , such reques t i s n o t p re sented in conjunction with a timely filed direc t appea l. See id. (citing Eve rett
v. State , 91 S.W .3d 386 (Tex. A pp.—Waco 2002, no pet.)). Fur ther, even if Perkins had appea led t h e t ri al court’s denial of his “application for habea s corpus,” we lack jurisdiction to g rant postconviction habea s corpus relief from final felony convictions. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2012); Ex parte Ale xander , 685 S.W .2d 57, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985). Acc ording ly , the appe al is dismis sed for want of jurisdiction.

J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Pemberton and Rose Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction on Rehear ing Filed: Mar ch 27, 2013 Do Not Publish 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001063530
<NAME>                        Surgical Safety Products, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1
<CASH>                          41,191
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   60,641
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     26,898
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                128,730
<PP&E>                          115,930
<DEPRECIATION>                  36,234
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  373,514
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           55,331
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        10,787
<OTHER-SE>                      1,998,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    373,514
<SALES>                         16,545
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                42,393
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   840,055
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              13,759
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (797,662)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (797,662)
<EPS-BASIC>                   (0.080)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of DemandTec, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material 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 report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this 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
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are 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 have:
 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.
    
    [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC Release 34-47986]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.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on 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 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.
 Date: July 3, 2008
    /s/ Mark A. CulhaneMark A. CulhaneExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 14

- 00248

- CV

IN RE MILESTONE LIFE SETTL EMENT FUND, LLC, MIL EFUND, LLC,

MILESTONE INVESTMENT S USA, LLC, RONALD N EWMAN,

AND JEFFREY S. HOLLINGSWORTH

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied

.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis , and

Justice Scoggins

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed September 18 , 2014

[OT06]I n re Milestone Life Settlement Fund, LLC Page 2
NUMBER 13-22-00314-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

OSBALDO GUERRA, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND D/B/A ON CALL DELIVERY SERVICE, Appellant,

v.

ARMANDO AGUILAR AND ANDRES PEREZ JR., Appellees.

 

On appeal from the 197th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras

Appellant Osbaldo Guerra, individually and d/b/a On Call Delivery Service, filed a 

notice of appeal assailing an order signed on May 19, 2022. Appellant has now filed a 

“Motion for Voluntary Dismissal” of this appeal on grounds that the appeal is moot. 
2

Appellant requests that we dismiss this appeal “without prejudice to the filing of 

subsequent appeals.”

The Court, having examined and fully considered appellant’s motion, is of the 

opinion that it should be granted. Accordingly, we grant appellant’s “Motion for Voluntary 

Dismissal” and we dismiss the appeal without regard to the merits and without prejudice 

to the filing of subsequent appeals from the underlying proceeding. Costs will be taxed 

against the appellant. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d).

DORI CONTRERAS

Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the

28th day of July, 2022.
|   | (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Falconridge Oil Technologies Corp. for the period ended May 31, 2015 (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 Falconridge Oil Technologies Corp. |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated: July 17, 2015 |   |                                                                                                          |
|---------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   |                                                                                                          |
|                      |   |                                                                                                          |
|                      |   | /s/ Alfred Morra                                                                                              |   |   |
|                      |   | Alfred Morra                                                                                                  |
|                      |   | Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |
|                      |   | Falconridge Oil Technologies Corp.                                                                            |
|                      |   |                                                                                                          |

----
II

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 3197

To amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to increase the minimum amount

available to States for State administrative expenses.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 12 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 22), 2000

Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

A BILL

To amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to increase the

minimum amount available to States for State administrative expenses.

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

3 SECTION 1. STATE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.

4 Section 7(a)(2) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966

5 (42 U.S.C. 1776(a)(2)) is amended in the second sentence

6 by striking ‘‘$100,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$200,000’’.

Æ
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1020 CA 13-01267**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF ALLEN MORRIS, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

V ORDER

BRIAN FISCHER, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (LEAH R. NOWOTARSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ALBANY (ZAINAB A. CHAUDHRY OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Wyoming County (Mark H. Dadd, A.J.), entered June 10, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78. The judgment dismissed the petition.
It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs ( see Matter of Sanchez v Evans , 111 AD3d 1315).

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
### Source Categories Emissions (tons/yr)%Cumulative % Agricultural Chemicals and Pesticides 1.30E-01 13.16 13.16 Chemical Preparations 1.30E-02 1.32 14.47 Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production [1] 3.00E-02 3.04 17.51 Guided Missiles and Space Vehicles Manufacturing 5.00E-03 0.51 18.01 Industrial Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 2.50E-01 25.30 43.31 Industrial Organic Chemicals Manufacturing 5.05E-01 51.11 94.42 Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing (MON) 4.37E-02 4.42 98.84 Pharmaceuticals Production 1.95E-03 0.20 99.04 Plastic Materials and Resins Manufacturing [2] 9.50E-03 0.96100.00

Total Emissions 0.99 100.00

Foot Notes [1] Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production was titled Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Production (not subject to petroleum refining MACT) in the May 1999 Report [2] Plastics Materials and Resins Manufacturing (Nov. 2002 Inventory) was titled Polymers and Resins (I,II,IV) in the May 1999 Report 

### Hydrazine
Exhibit 32.2
 
 
 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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hersha Hospitality Trust (the “Company”) for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ashish R. Parikh, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and
 
 (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 March 4, 2010
/s/ Ashish R. ParikhAshish R. ParikhChief Financial Officer
1 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. 97-40764 c/w 97-41251 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICHARD W. MELANCON,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No.1:96-CR-130-1 and 1:96-CR-131-1

- - - - - - - - - - April 16, 1998 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Richard W. Melancon appeals his sentences aft e r pleading

guilty to two separate indictments charging him with counterfeiting

federal reserve notes a nd possession with intent to distribute

cocaine and/or cocaine base. He argues that the district court

erred in denying his objection to the two-level increase in his

offense level for obstruction of justice and in denying a threelevel decrease in his offense level for acceptance of

responsibility. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's rulings and find no clear error in the district court’sfindings. United States v. Storm , 36 F.3d 1289, 1295 (5th Cir.

1994); United States v. Spires , 79 F.3d 464, 467 (5th Cir. 1996).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
Sanitized – Attachment 002Page1of2Sanitized – Attachment 002Page2of2