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

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-82,940-01

EX PARTE CURTIS ALLEN KIRKLAND, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 11-10-11344-CR (1) IN THE 9th DISTRICT COURT

FROM MONTGOMERY COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession with

intent to deliver a controlled substance, methamphetamine, and sentenced to seventy years’

imprisonment. The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. Kirkland v. State, 400 S.W.3d

625 (Tex. Crim. App.—Beaumont 2013). 

In several grounds for relief, Applicant contends both of his trial attorneys rendered

ineffective assistance in this case. The trial court recommends relief be granted after holding an
2

evidentiary hearing and determining trial counsels’ performance was deficient and such deficient

performance prejudiced Applicant at both the guilt-innocence and punishment phases of his trial. 

However, we do not agreewith the trial court’s determination regarding prejudice in this application.

At first blush, the trial court’s recommendation to grant a new trial on punishment appears

to be supported by the record and case law. See Ex parte Lane, 303 S.W.3d 702 (Tex. Crim. App.

2009). In Lane, we held the applicant was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to object, during the 1

punishment phase, to testimony by a law enforcement agent on the dangers and societal costs caused

by methamphetamine, that methamphetamine was one of the two most highly addictive drugs, and

that the amount of drugs found in applicant’s car was enough to get 45,000 people high. However, 2

the applicant in Lane did not have the same lengthy criminal background as the Applicant in this

case and, while we believe counsel should have made objections, the statements by the prosecutor

here are not nearly as outrageous as the statements made in the Lane case. 

Therefore, as with Applicant’s other claims for relief, we find he has not shown a reasonable

probability, one sufficient to undermine confidence in the result, that the outcome would have been

different but for his counsels’ deficient performance. Ex parte Chandler, 182 S.W.3d 350 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2005). 

We exercise our authorityto reach the contraryconclusion, and, accordingly, reliefis denied. 

 We did not grant a new trial in Lane, a case with a far more favorable factual situation to 1

the one in this case. Therefore, other than to find it is without merit, we will not address the trial

court’s recommendation to grant a new trial.

 The amount of methamphetamine in the Lane case was 225.44 grams. The amount of 2

methamphetamine in this case was 42.35 grams. 
3

See Ex parte Reed, 271 S.W.3d 698, 727-728 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). 

Filed: August 26, 2015

Do not publish
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 20

- 13 120 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1 :19

- c r - 20349

- RS

- 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

versus JOHNNY REYES , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ ( March 31, 2021 )
B efore JILL PRYOR , NEWSOM and LUCK Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM :

USCA11 Case: 20-13120 Date Filed: 03/31/2021 Page: 1 of 22 The Government ’ s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Appellant ’ s plea agreement is GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert , 997 F.2d 1343, 1350

– 51 (11th Cir. 1993) (sentence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and voluntarily ); United States v. Boyd , 975 F.3d 1185,
1190 , 1192 (11th Cir. 2020) (sentence appeal waiver was knowing and voluntary where district court specifically questioned defendant about the waiver during the plea colloquy)

.

USCA11 Case: 20-13120 Date Filed: 03/31/2021 Page: 2 of 2
#### Thoenig and others, Respondents, vs. City of Adams and others, Appellants.

*November 8*

December *3, 1940.*

*321
      *Orland S. Loomis*of Mauston, for the appellants.

*Schubring, Ryan, Petersen & Sutherland*of Madison, for the respondents.

Rosenberry, C. J.

Sec. 274.11 (1), Stats., provides:

> “An appeal is taken by serving notice of appeal, signed by the appellant or his attorney, on the adverse party and on the clerk of the court in which the judgment or order appealed from is entered, *stating whether the appeal is from the whole*
>       *322
>       *or some part thereof, and if from a part only, specifying the part appealed from.”*

An inspection of the judgment shows that the appellants have attempted to appeal not from a judgment but from a recital contained in the judgment. If, as a matter of fact, the recital was erroneously made for the reason that the case is not moot, then the judgment is erroneous and should be reversed. What i's attempted here is to leave the judgment itself stand and have the recital either stricken out or corrected. The verdict of a jury in case of a jury trial, the findings of the court in case of trial by the court, even though they be incorporated in the same instrument, are not a part of the judgment. This rule applies to findings of fact and also to conclusions of law. *Pier v. Prouty*(1886), 67 Wis. 218, 223, 30 N. W. 232; *Judge v. Powers*(1912), 156 Iowa, 251, 136 N. W. 315. See 30 Am. Jur. p. 823, § 7, and cases cited.

Appellants seem to be under the impression that in some way their rights in the matter now pending in the circuit court in the action to review the decision of the public service commission are affected by this judgment. We think this arises from the misconception as to the character of a judgment dismissing a case because it is moot. A moot case is one in which it is sought to get a judgment on a pretended controversy when in reality there is none, or a decision in advance about a right before it has been actually asserted and contested, or a judgment upon some matter which, when rendered, for any reason, cannot have any practical legal effect upon a then existing controversy. *Ex Parte Steele*(D. C. 1908), 162 Fed. 694.

This case is of the third class. The court dismissed the case for the reason that it was of the opinion that no adjudication it could make could have any particular legal effect because the time within which payment was to be made had expired. The court thereupon declined to proceed further *323with the case, and dismissed it for the reason that any judgment it could render would be ineffectual. This is not an adjudication of the rights of the parties. It is a refusal to adjudicate the rights - of the parties because in the opinion of the court the adjudication would be futile. If the court was in error, and the action should not have been dismissed for that reason, the appeal 'should have been from the judgment. The statute does not authorize appeals from recitals, findings, conclusions of law, or directions or orders for judgment.

*By the Court.*— The motion to dismiss the appeal is granted with $10 costs.
<!--/* //NOSONAR */-->
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	USINDOPACOM Statement on DPRK Missile Launch
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4870" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/Joint/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/55/INDOPACOM2018_100x100.png?ver=J6xEsvouw9aaqHcHjhoIIQ%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">USINDOPACOM Statement on DPRK Missile Launch</h1>
    </div>
    
<div id="adetail-slick-gallery" class="gallery">
    
    <div class="item">
        
        <div class="image">
            
            <img src="https://media.defense.gov/2024/Feb/29/2003402981/1920/1080/0/240229-N-ZZ099-1002.JPG"
                 class="aimage img-responsive"
                 alt="Graphic with a gradient blue background depicting the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command logo with the words Press Release laid over it."
                 itemprop="image" />
        </div>
        
        
        
        
        
        <div class="slide-info-hidden">
            <div class="slide-info-inner">
                
                <div class="image-title">240229-N-ZZ099-1001</div>
                <div class="image-caption">Graphic intended for use as a placeholder for Statements and Press Releases without accompanying imagery.</div>
            </div>
        </div>
    </div>

    
</div>
<div class="slide-info"></div>





    <div> <span class="date">/ Published April 1, 2024</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    <p><span style="font-size:larger;">We are aware of the DPRK’s ballistic missile launch and are consulting closely with the Republic of Korea and Japan, as well as other regional allies and partners. The United States condemns these actions and calls on the DPRK to refrain from further unlawful and destabilizing acts.  While we have assessed that this event does not pose an immediate threat to U.S. personnel, or territory, or to our allies, we continue to monitor the situation. The U.S. commitments to the defense of the ROK and Japan remain ironclad.</span></p>
<br />
</div>
    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
Exhibit 23.1
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-143786) pertaining to the2006 Equity Incentive Plan of Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals Inc. of our report dated March 29, 2010, except for Note 20, asto which the date is May 17, 2010, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals,Inc., and our report dated March 29, 2010, except for the effects of the material weakness described in the sixthparagraph of that report, as to which the date is May 17, 2010 with respect to the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting of Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10K/A) for theyear-ended December 31, 2009.
/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
London, England
May 17, 2010
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# USNS Fall River Arrives in Kuching for Pacific Partnership

CTF 73 Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
Order entered July 26, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00126-CR

SILVINO RICARDO AREVALO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-24895-U

ORDER

Before the Court is court reporter Sasha Brooks’s July 24, 2018 request for additional 

time to file the reporter’s record. We GRANT the request and ORDER the reporter’s record 

filed on or before July 31, 2018.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1177 

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to release on behalf of the United 

States the condition that certain lands conveyed to the City of Old 

Town, Maine, be used for a municipal airport, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2017 

Mr. POLIQUIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to release on behalf 

of the United States the condition that certain lands 

conveyed to the City of Old Town, Maine, be used for 

a municipal airport, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Removing Outdated 

5 Restrictions to Allow for Job Growth Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RELEASE OF REVERSIONARY INTEREST. 

7 (a) RELEASE.—Notwithstanding section 32(c) of the 

8 Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 1011(c)), if 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1177 IH

1 the City of Old Town, Maine, makes a written request to 

2 the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary shall release, 

3 convey, and quitclaim, without monetary consideration, all 

4 rights, title, and interest of the United States in and to 

5 the lands specified in subsection (b). 

6 (b) LANDS SPECIFIED.—The lands subject to sub7 section (a) include only the lands— 

8 (1) conveyed by the United States to the City 

9 of Old Town, Maine, under section 32(c) of the 

10 Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. 

11 1011(c)) by the deed dated June 5, 1941; 

12 (2) proposed for conveyance by the City of Old 

13 Town, Maine, for the purpose of economic develop14 ment; and 

15 (3) described in the written request submitted 

16 by the City of Old Town, Maine, to the Secretary of 

17 Agriculture pursuant to subsection (a). 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
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.

December 23, 2014

s1217 

# Order

Clerk December 23, 2014

146357 & (66)(71)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146357

COA: 300460

Grand Traverse CC:

10

- 011026

- FC

ALAN STARR TROWBRIDGE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, t he motion to expand the record is GRANTED. By order of

October 3, 2014, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer the application for leave

to appeal the September 25, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals. The answer having

been received, the application for leave to appeal is again considered. We direct the

Clerk to schedule oral ar gument on whether to grant the application or take other action.

MCR 7.302(H)(1). At oral argument, the parties shall address whether the Court of

Appeals correctly resolved the defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim in light

of People v Dou glas , 496 Mich 557 (2014). The parties may file supplemental briefs

within 42 days of the date of this order, but they should not submit mere restatements of

their application papers.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Erchides Urbaez, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 356]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered March 20, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 41/2 to 9 years, *21⁄2*to 5 years, and *21⁄2*to 5 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The jury’s finding that defendant’s duress defense was not proven by a preponderance of the evidence is entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless manifestly erroneous *(People v Corporan,*169 AD2d 643, *lv denied*77 NY2d 959; *see, People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495). Here, the defense of duress was clearly rebutted by defendant’s statement immediately prior to the shooting. Moreover, evidence that defendant was the only one at the scene with a gun, and that he retained custody of the weapon after the shooting, suggests his willing participation in the criminal activity, despite defendant’s self-serving statements to the police.

Nor was defendant’s prior conviction for criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree improperly admitted. Where defendant asserts a duress defense, evidence of uncharged crimes is admissible to rebut the claim of coercion and to prove a criminal intent or design *(see, People v Calvano,*30 NY2d 199). Moreover, defendant’s claim that the court failed to give a limiting instruction on the use of the prior conviction is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, no request for one having been made *(see, People v Marte,*207 AD2d 314, 316-317, *lv denied*84 NY2d 937). We decline to review it in the interest of justice.

Notwithstanding that defendant was in custody at the time *(People v Reyes,*174 AD2d 367, *lv denied*78 NY2d 1014), the People met their burden of proving that defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his apartment. The defendant fully cooperated with the police and stated, "the gun is in room 510 * * * take me there and I will show you where it is” *(People v Gonzalez,*39 NY2d 122, 129). The scope of the search did not exceed the consent given *(People v Estrella,*160 AD2d 250, *lv denied*76 NY2d 787).

*569Finally, defendant was not deprived of his absolute right to be present in the courtroom during the readback of testimony to the jury (CPL 310.30; *People v*Rodriguez, 76 NY2d 918, 921). The presence of the Spanish interpreter and the court’s direction to bring the defendant "up”, both noted in the record, can only be interpreted as indicating that defendant was present during the readback. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# Weapons Airmen Prep Jets for Combat

By Senior Airman John Linzmeier18th Wing Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
G-37

CHAPTER 4-140

AML SPECIAL FUTURE SET-ASIDE PROGRAM

4-140-00 What does this chapter do?

4-140-10 Where do these requirements come from?

4-140-20 Can you put more money in a future set-aside account?

4-140-30 What can you do with funds in a future set-aside account?

4-140-00 What does this chapter do?

This chapter explains procedures for special Abandoned Mine Land (AML) future set-aside 

program funding awarded to you, a state or tribal recipient, by us, the Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE).

4-140-10 Where do these requirements come from?

The AML special or future set-aside program was authorized, then changed, and finally 

abolished by Congress in amendments to the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

(SMCRA). In 1987, Congress established the future set-aside program to allow states and tribes 

with approved AML programs to set aside AML funds to use for mine reclamation after the end 

of AML funding. The initial set-aside allowed you to spend the funds after August 3, 1992, for 

the purposes of Title IV. In 1990, Congress amended the program to allow you to spend the 

funds after September 30, 1995, for the coal priorities in section 403(a). In 2006, Congress 

abolished the future set-aside program. 

4-140-20 Can you put more money in a future set-aside account?

No, you cannot put any more AML funds in a future set-aside account. 

4-140-30 What can you do with funds in a future set-aside account?

A. We will consider all set-aside funds deposited in your set-aside account, plus any interest

earned, as state or tribal funds.

B. You may spend funds in the set-aside account according to the terms in effect at the time

we awarded each grant.

1. You must spend funds awarded under the 1987 set-aside, and related interest, for

the purposes of Title IV of SMCRA.

2. You must spend funds awarded under the 1990 set-aside, and related interest, for

any of the coal priorities in section 403(a) of SMCRA.
G-38

C. You can use funds in the set-aside account to meet a non-Federal funding match 

requirement for another Federal assistance program. However, the goals of the other 

program must meet the spending requirements for the AML set-aside program.
```

[Federal Register: September 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 185)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 58330-58331]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr24se10-13]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 3000

 
Minerals Management: General

CFR Correction

    In Title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1000 to End, 
revised as of October 1, 2009, on page 331, in

[[Page 58331]]

Sec.  3000.12, move paragraph (b) to below the table on page 332.

[FR Doc. 2010-24034 Filed 9-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```