alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-73,556-03

EX P ARTE CHRISTO P HER LAMAR MOORE, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 2007-503-C2B IN THE 54TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM MC LENNAN COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Applicant filed this a

pplication for a writ of habea s corpus in the county of conviction, and the district cler

k forwa rded it to this Court. See T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07. According to the rec ord, the trial court held an evidentiar y hear ing on Dec ember 10, 2020, but the transcr ipt of the hear ing was not forwa

rded t o t h i s C o u rt
. Under Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, a repor

ter is require d to transcr ibe a hear ing within fiftee n day s of its conclusion and then to immediately forwa

rd the transcr ipt to the district cler k in the county of conviction. Id

. at § 3(d). After rec eiving the transcr ipt, the district cler k is require d to forwa

rd it, among other things, to this Court. Id .; see also T E X . R. A P P . P. 73.4(b)( 4). The dist rict clerk s hall serve the reporter in Applicant’s case w i t h a copy of t his order and2

then either forwa

rd to this Court the transcr ipt of the evidentiar y hear ing or cer

tify in writing that the repor ter has not transcr ibed the hear ing. The district cler k shall comply with this order within thirty day s from the da

te of this order

.

Filed: De cembe r 21, 2020 Do not publish
1 Ogulei, David

From: Damico, Genevieve

Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 7:06 AM

To: Woolums, Jane; Ogulei, David

Subject: FW: Follow-up meeting per your r equest in your December 19 letter

Feb 11 th ?

From: Harris, Doug [mailto:doug.harris@veolia.com]

Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 11:48 AM

To: Damico, Genevieve

Subject: Re: Follow

‐ up meeting per your request in your December 19 letter

Genevieve,

Each of your three proposed dates are workable for us. Do you just want to pick the morning of the 11th? Let

me know?

On 8 January 2015 at 10:19, Damico, Genevieve < damico.genevieve@epa.gov > wrote:

Doug,

I hope you are keeping warm.

I wanted to connect with you on your request for a m eeting included in the cove r letter to your comments on

the draft Title V renewal permit so it doesn’t get lost in the hustle and bustle. We are currently busily working

through the various comments we received but our calendars should free up some in ea rly February. Could we

plan to meet in the morning of February 10, 11, or 12?

-- 

### Doug Harris

General Manager

Veolia ES Technical Solutions

7 Mobile Avenue

Sauget, IL 62201

Office 618-271-2804

Cell 618-616-7420

Fax 618-271-21282 Email: doug.harris@veolia.com

SERVICE FIRST. SAFETY ALWAYS.

This e-mail message from Veolia Environmental Serv ices North America Corp. is for the sole use of

the intended recipient and may c ontain confidential and privilege d information. Any unauthorized

review, use disclosure or distribution is prohibit ed. If you are not the intended recipient, please

communicate with the sender by reply e-mail and destr oy all copies of the original message and

delete same from all computers.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,691
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,211
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (147)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         216,346
<DEPRECIATION>                                (35,224)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 235,074
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        208,087
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,174
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,855
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   235,074
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,369
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   14,106
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,430
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,466
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,466
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,466
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        




</TABLE>
### 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R06-0AR-20IO-0620; FRL- ---.J Approval and Promulgation ofAir Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); 

### Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Texas PSD State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA proposes to approve a SIP revision submitted February 1, 2006, as amended by a SIP revision submitted July 16, 2010. This action makes no significant changes to the Texas PSD SIP; 

### it merely approves reorganization and renumbering ofthe Texas PSD SIP rules. Further, the July 16, 2010 submission corrects certain deficiencies identified in EPA's September 23,2009 proposed disapproval. The EPA proposes to approve these revisions pursuant to section 110 and part C ofthe Federal Clean Air Act (Act or CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before [Insert date 30 days from date of publication in the Federal Registerl.2 

### ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailedto Mr. 

### Stanley M. Spruiell, AirPermits Section (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

### 75202-2733. Comments may also be submitted electronically orthrough hand delivery/courier by following thedetailed instructions in the Addresses section of thedirect final rule located in the rules section ofthis Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section 

### (6PD-R), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7212; fax number 214-665-7263; e-mail address Spruiell.stanley@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section ofthis 

### Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's 

### SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agencyviews this as a noncontroversial submittal andanticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for theapproval is set forth in thedirect finalrule. If

### no relevant adverse comments are received inresponse to this action, no further activity is contemplated. IfEPA 

### receivesrelevant adverse comments, thedirect final rule will be withdrawn andall public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on thisproposed rule. EPAwill notinstitute a secondcomment period. Anyparties interested incommenting on this actionshould do so atthistime. Please notethat if EPAreceives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or sectionofthis rule and ifthat provision may be 

### severed from the

### 3 remainder of the rule, EPA mayadopt as final thoseprovisions of

### therule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of this Federal Register. 

# _?;hi_ 10

__ Dated: A! endaiiz, 

### Regional Administrator, Re 

### 6.
#### JOHN H. McELWEE v. *W.*T. BLACKWELL & CO.

*Practice*— Submitting *Issues.*

The issues in a cause are made by the pleadings, and it is not error to refuse to submit an issue which the pleadings do not raise.

Civil Action tried at Fall Term, 1879, of Catawba Superior Court, before *Schenck, J.*

The plaintiff appealed from the judgment below..

*Mr. J. M. McGorlde,*for plaintiff.

*Messrs. Merrimon, Fuller & Fuller,*for defendants.

Dillabd, J.

This was am appeal from the refusal of the court below to submit a particular issue tendered by the plaintiff The action was for violation of a trade mark, and among the facts constituting the cause of action the plaintiff alleged that he was the sole and exclusive owner. This fact was denied by the answer.

His Honor submitted an issue touching the controverted fact, and plaintiff requested the submission of one inquiring if plaintiff had not the exclusive -right, what right did he have to the trade mark, and this one was refused on- the ground that no allegation in the-pleadings authorized it.

His Honor’s refusal was plainly correct. An issue of fact arises upon a material allegation in the complaint controverted by the answer (C. C. P., § 221,) or upon new matter in the answer controverted in the reply, § 221 (2).

The only issue joined on the pleadings was as to the sole and exclusive ownership of the trade mark, and no amendment being moved for, it was not error to refuse the issue as to ownership, other than sole and exclusive, as alleged.

The judgment of nonsuit is therefore affirmed and this will be certified.

No error. Affirmed.
#### Moore *v.*Suttril’s Adm’r.

Doctor Umstead was sued as administrator in right of his wife, a *capias*issued to Chatham, where he did not live, &c. Objected by *Mr.*Mhore, a *capias*ought not, to have issued, but a summons ; and the attachment is irregular, being founded on such a *capias;*and the suit is improperly brought, it ought to have been against Mrs. Umstead also, for suppose she had died, it would have abated — if he had died, it would have abated also, as the case is circumstanced : but had it been brought against both, and he had died, it would have survived against her. The Plaintiff being not ready, was nonsuited.

Note. — Vide *Chitt. Plead.*43.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation in Registration Statement No. 333-110673 of
Alexander's, Inc. on Form S-3 of our report dated March 2, 2004 (which report
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating
to the Company's adoption of SFAS No. 144 on January 1, 2002) appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alexander's, Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2003, and to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in the Prospectus,
which is part of such Registration Statement.

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Parsippany, New Jersey
March 2, 2004
Use this ‘decision tree’ to determine whether the results of a audiometric exam 

given on or after January 1, 2003 reveal a recordable STS. 

Is the employee’s overall hearing level at 25dB or 

more above audiometric zero averaged at 2000, 3000 

and 4000 Hz in the affected ear(s)?

Record on the OSHA 300 log, and check the

"Hearing Loss column" **

Is the hearing loss work-related?

Has the employee suffered a STS (an 

average 10dB or more loss relative to the most current baseline 

audiogram averaged at 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hz) in one or both ears 

according to the provisions of the OSHA noise standard (§1910.95)? *

Note: In all cases, use the most current baseline to determine recordability as you would to calculate 

a STS under the hearing conservation provisions of the noise standard (§1910.95). If an STS occurs 

in only one ear, you may only revise the baseline audiogram for that ear.

* The audiogram may be adjusted for presbycusis (aging) as set out in 1910.95.

** A separate hearing loss column on the OSHA 300 Log beginning in Calendar year 2004. 

Do not record

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00161-CR

Chris Alvin Arnold, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 51ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. A-06-0324-S, HONORABLE BARBARA L. WALTHER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no

arguable grounds to be advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State,

573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);

Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137

(Tex. Crim. App. 1969). Appellant received a copy of counsel’s brief and was advised of his right

to examine the appellate record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief and agree that the appeal is frivolous

and without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. See
2

Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Counsel’s motion to withdraw

is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

___________________________________________

Diane M. Henson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Waldrop and Henson

Affirmed

Filed: January 13, 2010

Do Not Publish
### 2 been amended to account for the storage stability error (storage stability results have been removed). This adjustment has little impact on the derived flux profile for chlorpyrifos or total toxic chlorpyrifos

residues.

Flux Calculations

DAS expressed concern over EPA’s use of a value of 0.42 for the von Karman (k) constant instead of 0.4 in Aerodynamic method calculations. The k values u sed in the past have ranged from 0.4 to 0.42; however, it appears that a value of 0.42 is more co mmonly used. EPA has updated the DER to reflect the use of 0.4. This result is approximately a 10% re duction in the flux calculations. However, this only impacts the flux rates calculated using the aerodyna mic method and not flux rates derived using the integrated horizontal flow method. The flux profile for the integrated horizontal flow method provides a more conservative flux profile.

Consideration of Total Toxic Chlorpyrifos Residues

While Dow AgroSciences supports the approach EPA used to determine the flux for the oxon, they expressed concern over the method employed to devel op the flux profile for total toxic chlorpyrifos residues used in PERFUM analysis, as it appears not to be reasonable from a mass balance perspective. The generated total toxic chlorpyrif os residue flux profile is not b ased on mass balance approach, but rather is based on parent equivalent toxicity. The DE R has been updated to also include a flux profile for

total toxic residues based on mass. While there are mu ltiple ways to account for the total toxic residues, the approach presented in the DER is reasonable.
**Exhibit 32**

 

# **CERTIFICATION**

 

We, the****undersigned Chief Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer, respectively, of Canterbury Park Holding Corporation(the “Company”), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, hereby certify:

 

(1)          ThatReport on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2003 (the “Report”), fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          Thatinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
|                                |   |   |   | **CANTERBURY PARK HOLDING CORPORATION**      |
|-------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|                                |   |   |   |                                         |
| Dated:  November 14, 2003 |   |   |   | /s/ Randall  D. Sampson                      |   |
|                                |   |   |   | Randall D.  Sampson,                         |
|                                |   |   |   | President,  and Chief Executive Officer      |
|                                |   |   |   |                                         |
| Dated:  November 14, 2003 |   |   |   | /s/ David C.  Hansen                         |   |
|                                |   |   |   | David C.  Hansen,                            |
|                                |   |   |   | Vice  President, and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                     |        |        |        |                                              |  |  |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 214 (Tuesday, November 5, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87859-87860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25700]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XE453]


Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meetings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will 
hold a meeting of the Pacific Pelagics Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) 
Plan Team (PT) to discuss fishery management issues and develop 
recommendations to the Council for future management of pelagic 
fisheries in the Western Pacific region.

[[Page 87860]]


DATES: For the date, time and meeting agenda, see SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: Web conference access information will be posted on the 
Council's website at www.wpcouncil.org. For assistance with the web 
conference connection, contact the Council office at (808) 522-8220.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kitty M. Simonds, Executive Director, 
Western Pacific Fishery Management Council; telephone: (808) 522-8220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Pelagic PT meeting will be held on 
November 18, 2024, and run from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time 
(HST) (12 p.m. to 4 p.m. Samoa Standard Time (SST); 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on 
November 19, 2024, Chamorro Standard Time (ChST)). Public comment 
periods will be provided in the agenda. The order in which agenda items 
are addressed may change. The meeting will run as late as necessary to 
complete scheduled business.

Agenda for the Pelagic Plan Team Meeting

Monday, November 18, 2024, 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. HST

1. Welcome and Introductions
2. Approval of Draft Agenda
3. U.S. Catch Limits for North Pacific Striped Marlin (Initial Action)
4. Hawaii and American Samoa Longline Fisheries Crew Training 
Requirement (Initial Action)
5. Development of an Electronic Monitoring Program for Western Pacific 
Fisheries (Initial Action)
6. Other Business
7. Public Comment
8. Discussion and Recommendations

Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 
522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: October 31, 2024.
Rey Israel Marquez,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-25700 Filed 11-4-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
#### J. L. and L. L KITCHEN *v*W. C. TROY.

Where there are no facts found, and the pleadings and affidavits are conflicting, the case will be remanded, to the end, that the facts may be found by the Court below, or by a jury upon proper issues submitted to them,

Civil action, and prayer for an Injunction, heard before *Watts, J.,*at Chambers, at the June Term, 1874, of Wake Superior Court.

After notice, the defendant moved to vacate the Injunction, granted upon application of the plaintiffs, when the summons issued. His Honor refused to vacate the Injunction, and the defendant appealed.

As the case is remanded for the facts to be found, it is unnecessary at this stage of the proceedings, to state the facts apparently admitted in the complaint and answer.

*Fuller (& Ashe,*for appellant.

*Jones c& Jones,*and *Smith <& Strong,*contra.

*51Pearsor, 0. J.

The facts are not found, and taking the complaint and the answer as affidavits, in connection with the other affidavits filed, there is so much conflict that this Court is not competent to decide the “ questions of fact” as distinguished from “ issues of fact.”

The case is, therefore, remanded to the end that the facts may be found by the Court, or upon issues submitted to a jury.

Mr. Ashe moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the complaint does not allege facts sufficient to entitle the plaintiffs to the relief demanded, that is, a rescission of the second mortgage. It may be, that the facts alleged will not entitle the plaintiffs to have the second mortage rescinded; but the plaintiffs allege that the second mortgage was executed with the understanding that the first mortgage and the gold watch was to be surrendered as a condition precedent. If such be the fact, the plaintiffs have an equity to enjoin a sale under the second mortgage, until the defendant has purged himself of the imputed fraud and breach of faith by surrendering the first mortgage and watch, and paying by way of compensation, the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, by reason of not being able to dispose of the land and watch, which, in breach of the agreement, the defendant has fraudulently, as is-alleged, failed to surrender.

This will be certified.

PeR Curiam. Case remanded..
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 86855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25310]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

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[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 25, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 538 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-161, K2025-159.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-25310 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P