alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

DERYL JACKSON,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00009-CR

Appeal from the

85th Judicial District Court

of Brazos County, Texas

(TC# 19-04458-CRF-85)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
|   | (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 as of and for the period covered by the Report. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/ Richard H. Flake                              |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Richard H. Flake                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                               |
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of

well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the

public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that

Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40586 

Conference Calendar

__________________

RONALD CARPENTER,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

B. KINNEY, Officer, Coffield Unit

 Defendant-Appellee

and

J. W. SHAW, Warden, Coffield Unit,

 Defendant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:94-CV-506

- - - - - - - - - -

December 21, 1995

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ronald Carpenter moves this court for the production of the

transcript of his trial at the expense of the government. On

appeal, Carpenter argues that the magistrate judge gave improper

weight to witness testimony and made incorrect credibility

findings. We dispense with further briefing because we have
No. 95-40586

-2-

reviewed the record and the magistrate judge's opinion, which

includes detailed findings of fact, and determined that

Carpenter's sole appellate contention is legally meritless;

therefore, Carpenter's motion for a transcript at government

expense is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R.

42.2.
EXHIBIT 32








CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








George R. Lefevre, as Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of MotivNation, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, that





(1)           the Company’s Annual Report of Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.





/s/ George R. Leferve


Date:  May 14, 2010                        _________________________


George R. Lefevre


Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 3, 2014

No. 04-14-00348-CR

Jacob KLEIN,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013CR2866

Honorable Pat Priest, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief and motion to withdraw pursuant to 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to 

raise on appeal. Counsel certifies he served copies of the brief and motion on appellant,

informed appellant of his right to review the record and file his own brief, and provided appellant 

with a form for requesting the record and explained to appellant the procedure for obtaining the 

record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State, 954 

S.W.2d 83 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). To date, appellant has not filed the form provided by 

his counsel. 

If appellant desires to file a pro se brief, we order that he do so on or before November

17, 2014. The State has filed a notice waiving its right to file a brief in this case unless appellant 

files a pro se brief. If appellant files a timely pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no 

later than thirty days after appellant=s pro se brief is filed in this court.

We further order the motion to withdraw filed by appellant’s counsel held in abeyance

pending further order of the court. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80-82 (1988) (holding that 

motion to withdraw should not be ruled on before appellate court independently reviews record 

to determine whether counsel’s evaluation that appeal is frivolous is sound); Schulman v. State, 

252 S.W.3d 403, 410-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (same).
We further order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on appellant, his 

counsel, the attorney for the State, and the clerk of the trial court. 

_________________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of October, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 904 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 904

   To provide that certain costs of private foundations in removing 
   hazardous substances shall be treated as qualifying distributions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 28, 1999

 Mr. Bunning (for himself and Mr. McConnell) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide that certain costs of private foundations in removing 
   hazardous substances shall be treated as qualifying distributions.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN COSTS OF PRIVATE FOUNDATION IN REMOVING HAZARDOUS 
              SUBSTANCES TREATED AS QUALIFYING DISTRIBUTION.

    (a) In General.--In the case of any taxable year beginning after 
December 31, 1999, the distributable amount of a private foundation for 
such taxable year for purposes of section 4942 of the Internal Revenue 
Code of 1986 shall be reduced (but not below zero) by any amount paid 
or incurred (or set aside) by such private foundation for the 
investigatory costs and direct costs of removal or taking remedial 
action with respect to a hazardous substance released at a facility 
which was owned or operated by such private foundation.
    (b) Limitations.--Subsection (a) shall only apply to costs--
            (1) incurred with respect to hazardous substances disposed 
        of at a facility owned or operated by the private foundation 
        but only if--
                    (A) such facility was transferred to such 
                foundation by bequest before December 11, 1980, and
                    (B) the active operation of such facility by such 
                foundation was terminated before December 12, 1980, and
            (2) which were not incurred pursuant to a pending order 
        issued to the private foundation unilaterally by the President 
        or the President's assignee under section 106 of the 
        Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
        Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9606), or pursuant to a 
        nonconsensual judgment against the private foundation issued in 
        a governmental cost recovery action under section 107 of such 
        Act (42 U.S.C. 9607).
    (c) Hazardous Substance.--For purposes of this section, the term 
``hazardous substance'' has the meaning given such term by section 
101(14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(14)).
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 161 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[House]
[Page H10808]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 AUTHORIZING THE SPEAKER TO ENTERTAIN MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES ON 
                                 TODAY

  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order today for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules 
relating to H.R. 6867.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________
```
#### Robert Lindsay, Plaintiff, v. L. O. Hatch, Defendant.

Injunction: violation: contempt.

Thursday, May 26, 1892.

Proceeding by *certiorari*to test the legality of an order refusing to punish and discharging a person accused of a contempt.

*A. Chapin,,*for plaintiff.

No appearance for defendant.

Kinne, J.

This cause involves the same questions as are presented in *Lindsay v. Hatch, ante,*page 332, (decided at this term) and, following it, it will be reversed.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 169 (Monday, October 27, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S10523]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                                 Senate

Monday, October 27, 2008

(Legislative day of Wednesday, September 17, 2008)

  The Senate met at 9 and 3 seconds a.m., on the expiration of the 
recess, and was called to order by the Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse, a 
Senator from the State of Rhode Island.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 176 (Wednesday, November 19, 2008)]
[Daily Digest]
[Pages D1281-D1282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 Committee Meetings
(Committees not listed did not meet)
 DOMESTIC AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY
  Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:  On Tuesday, 
November 18, Committee concluded a hearing to examine the state of the 
domestic automobile industry, after receiving testimony from Senator 
Stabenow; Ron Gettelfinger, International Union, United Automobile, 
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), and Rick 
Wagoner, General Motors Corporation, both of Detroit, Michigan; Alan R. 
Mulally, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan; Robert Nardelli, 
Chrysler LLC, Auburn Hills, Michigan; and Peter Morici, University of 
Maryland Robert H. Smith School of Business, College Park.
 NOMINATION
  Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:  Committee 
concluded a hearing to examine the nomination of Neil M. Barofsky, of 
New York, to be Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief 
Program of the Department of the Treasury, after the nominee, who was 
introduced by Senators Dodd and Schumer, testified and answered 
questions in his own behalf.
 ECONOMIC STIMULUS
  Committee on the Budget:  Committee concluded a hearing to examine 
the economic outlook and options for stimulus, after receiving 
testimony from Mark M. Zandi, Moody's Economy.com, West Chester, 
Pennsylvania; Simon Johnson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
Sloan School of Management, Cambridge; and John B. Taylor, Stanford 
University, Palo Alto, California.
 HEALTH CARE REFORM
  Committee on Finance:  Committee concluded a hearing to examine 
health care reform, focusing on the economic perspective, after 
receiving testimony from Ivan Seidenberg, Verizon, Inc., New York, New 
York, on behalf of the Business Roundtable; Andrew L. Stern, Service 
Employees International Union, Washington, D.C.; Uwe Reinhardt, 
Princeton University Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International 
Affairs, Princeton, New Jersey; and Amitabh Chandra, Harvard University 
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

[[Page D1282]]

 BANKRUPTCY LAW
  Committee on the Judiciary:  Committee concluded a hearing to examine 
helping families stay in their homes, focusing on the role of 
bankruptcy laws, including S. 2136, to address the treatment of primary 
mortgages in bankruptcy, and S. 3690, to help struggling families stay 
in their homes and to ensure that taxpayers are protected when the 
Secretary of the Treasury purchases equity shares in financial 
situations, after receiving testimony from Tom Dart, Cook County 
Sheriff's Office, Chicago, Illinois; Michael D. Calhoun, Center for 
Responsible Lending, Durham, North Carolina; Adam J. Levitin, 
Georgetown University Law Center, David G. Kittle, Mortgage Bankers 
Association, and Scott A. Stengel, Orrick, Herrington, and Sutcliffe 
LLP, all of Washington, D.C.; and Christopher J. Mayer, Columbia 
Business School, New York, New York.
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Defense

###### Department of the Navy

# AGENCY:

Department of the Navy (DoN), Department of Defense (DoD).

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of the Navy (DoN) announces the appointment of members to the DON Senior Executive Service (SES), Senior Level (SL), and Scientific and Professional (ST) Fiscal Year 2024 Performance Review Board (PRB). The purpose of the PRB is to provide fair and impartial review of the annual SES performance appraisal prepared by the senior executive's immediate and second level supervisor; to make recommendations to appointing officials regarding acceptance or modification of the performance rating; and to make recommendations for performance-based bonuses and performance-based pay increases.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Kim Hanson, Director, Executive Management Program Office, Manpower and Reserve Affairs at 703-693-8896 or                         *kim.t.hanson.civ@us.navy.mil.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Composition of the specific PRB is provided below:

Ms. E. Anne Sandel

Dr. Brett Seidle

Ms. Lisa St. Andre

Mr. Steven Parode

Dr. Bruce Danly

Mr. Thomas Rudowsky

Mr. Christopher Miller

Ms. Jennifer LaTorre

Ms. Deline Reardon

Ms. Catherine Kessmeier

Ms. Kate DeMane (HLR)

Ms. Jennifer Edgin (HLR)

Mr. Robert Hogue (Chair)

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4))

Dated: October 29, 2024.

A.J. Gioiello,

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2024-25520 Filed 11-1-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
(LOGO)

Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation

Private Client Group

4802 Deer Lake Drive East
Jacksonville, Florida 32246-6484
904 218 6000
800 243 0058

February 22,1999

Deloitte & Touche LLP
2801 Independence Drive
Jacksonville, FL 32202

Ladies and Gentlemen:

As of and for the year ended December 25, 1998, Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation
and subsidiaries  (the "Company") has complied in all material respects with the
minimum  servicing  standards set forth in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of
America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers. As of and for
the same  period,  the  Company  had in  effect  fidelity  bond and  errors  and
omissions  insurance  coverage in the amounts of  $325,000,000  and  $15,000,000
respectively.

Michael A. Johnston
Chairman, President/Chief Executive Officer

Francis X. Ervin,  Jr.
Senior Vice President/Chief Financial Officer

John M. Wheeler
Senior Vice President
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 31, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 23, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 522 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-144, K2025-142.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-25286 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 160 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Page S10459]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

             TAX TREATMENT OF EMPLOYER-PROVIDED CELL PHONES

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Senator Ensign and I would like to engage 
in a brief colloquy with the distinguished chairman and ranking member 
of the Finance Committee, Senators Baucus and Grassley, regarding 
legislation we have sponsored to fix an archaic provision in the Tax 
Code that adversely affects employees and businesses across the 
country. Under a little-noticed provision added in 1989, cell phones, 
blackberries, and similar devices are treated as ``listed property.'' 
As a result, employees must keep detailed records of all calls made on 
their employer-issued cell phones--indicating whether they are personal 
or business-related--or have the value of the phone and phone service 
included as taxable income.
  The current law provision was added at a time when cell phones were 
considered a luxury item. Now, they are a common and necessary part of 
conducting everyday business. Imposing strict substantiation 
requirements on the business use of cell phones and blackberries is 
burdensome and highly impractical given their frequent use in a fast-
paced global environment. To protect tens of thousands of employees and 
their employers from potential audits and tax liability, we should pass 
legislation as soon as possible next year to fix this problem.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I want to join my distinguished colleague from 
Massachusetts and express my hope that legislation can be passed early 
next year to fix the out-dated tax treatment of employer-provided cell 
phones. The bill he and I have introduced has broad bipartisan support 
with over 60 cosponsors. Similar legislation has already passed the 
House. And both Treasury and the IRS are supportive of the fix. Thus, 
Senator Kerry and I would like to ask the distinguished chairman and 
ranking member of the Finance Committee, for their help in passing this 
legislation early next year.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I want to thank my distinguished colleagues from 
Massachusetts and Nevada for raising this issue with us. I want to 
assure them that we are aware of this problem and we will work with our 
colleagues to consider legislation to eliminate the burden for 
employees and employers as early as possible.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I also want to join the chairman and express my intent 
to have the committee consider legislation that addresses this problem 
as soon as we can. We should not be imposing unreasonable rules on 
employees' use of cell phones and blackberries.
  Mr. KERRY. Senator Ensign and I want to thank the distinguished 
chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for their 
willingness to work with us to address this important problem.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 162 (Monday, October 6, 2008)]
[Daily Digest]
[Page D1239]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Committee Meetings
LEHMAN BROTHERS BANKRUPTCY--CAUSES AND EFFECTS
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: Held a hearing on the 
Causes and Effects of the Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy. Testimony was 
heard from Richard S. Fuld, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, 
Lehman Brothers Holdings; and public witnesses.
```