alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09

- 12

- 00320

- CR

NO. 09

- 12

- 00321

- CR



### ________________

OLIVIA NICOLE BARTEE , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________________ __________________________

On Appeal from the 258th District Court

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No s

. 21857, 22192

________________________________________ __________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A ppellant Olivia Nicole Bartee pleaded gu il ty to engaging in organized

criminal activity and burglary of a vehicle. T he trial court found the evidence

sufficie nt to find Bartee guilty, but deferred further proceedings and placed Bartee

o n commun ity supervision for five years in the engaging in organized criminal

activity case and one year in the burglary of a vehicle case

. The State subsequently

filed a moti on to adjudicate guilt in each case

. Bartee ple ade d “ not true” to all of

the alleged vio lations of the conditions of her community supervision in each2 case

. 1 After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that Bartee

violated the conditions of her community supervision, found Bartee g uilty of

engaging in organized criminal activity and burglary of a vehicle, and assessed

punishment at ten years of confinement in the engaging in organized criminal

activity case and one year of confinement in the burglary of a vehicle case

.

Bartee’s appellate counsel filed brief s that present counsel’s professional

evaluation of the record s and conclud e the appeal s are frivolous. See Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967); High v. State , 573

S.W. 2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On November 21 , 20 12 , we granted an

extension of time for Bartee to file pro se brief s

. We receive d no response from

Bartee

.

We have reviewed the appellate record s , and we agree with counsel’s

conclusion tha t no arguable issues support the appeal s . Therefore, we find it

unnecessary to order appointment of new counsel to re

- brief the appeal s

. Compare

Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial

court’s judgment s

. 2

1 The judgments erroneously state that Bartee pleaded “true.”

2 Bartee may challenge our decision in th ese case s by filing a petition for

discretionary review. See Tex. R. App. P. 68.3 AFFIRMED.

_________________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on March 5, 2013

Opinion Delivered March 27, 2013

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.
EXHIBIT 10.28A


May  5,  2001

                                VIA HAND DELIVERY

Dennis  McKinnie

Dear  Dennis:

This  letter  shall  constitute  an  amendment  to  the Separation Agreement and
General  Release  (the "Agreement").  Capitalized terms used herein that are not
otherwise  defined  shall  have  the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement.

Section  1  of  the  Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the Termination
Date  shall  be  the  date of the 2001 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Level 8
Systems, Inc.  Section 2a. of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide for the
payment  of  Employee's severance in one lump sum to be paid on May 7, 2001 (the
"Payment Date").  Section 2g. of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that
Employee  shall  also  receive  payment  for  Employee's earned vacation per the
Agreement on the Payment Date.  Employee's regular salary shall continue through
the  Termination  Date.  All  other  terms  of the Agreement shall be unchanged.

                         Sincerely,



                         Paul  Rampel
                         President


Agreed:

_______________________
Dennis  McKinnie
Employee
# C_2004273EN.01002104.xml

| 6.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 273/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/21

---

Action brought on 20 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

(Case C-396/04)

(2004/C 273/39)

An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 September 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Huttunen and K. Simonsson, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 establishing harmonised requirements and procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers (1), or at least by failing to notify them to the Commission, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2001 establishing harmonised requirements and procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers (1), or at least by failing to notify them to the Commission, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | Order Finland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Order Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period prescribed for implementing the directive expired on 5 August 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 13 of 16.1.2002, p. 9.

1

---
# ..\=AA- LO \0

- 120\ Contacts. With whom outside the FAA hasthis proposal been discussed?

Organization 

### PersonCo~tacted Date 

### Response i'llltiolla! nusincss Ail'craft Association Eli CoW I 

# 'l/22Ju 

# - Regiomll Airline Assm:iation Dave Luttcrcr 

# Z/ZZho 

# - Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 

# t/U/O 

# - ATA 

# • 1 ATA M Lopez 

# Z/ZZ//O 

# -
#### In the Matter of Joseph Brenner, Petitioner, v Kenneth A. Davis, as Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Respondent.

[773 NYS2d 617]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review a determination of the respondent dated July 1, 2003, holding the petitioner in contempt of court.

Motion by the respondent to dismiss the petition on the ground that the notice of petition and petition were improperly served by the petitioner pro se.

Cross motion by the petitioner for an extension of time to properly serve the respondent.

Upon the papers filed in support of the petition, motion, and cross motion, it is,

Ordered that the motion is granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the cross motion is denied; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, without costs or disbursements *(see*CPLR 2103 [a]). Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.b



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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(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 registrant.



|             |  |                            
|------------ |  | ---------------------------
|Date:        |  |                            
|May 15, 2006 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|             |  |                            
|             |  | Marc N. Teal               
|             |  | Principal Financial Officer
|             |  |                            
|             |  |                            
|             |  |                            

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2005048EN.01000502.xml

| 24.2.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/5

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3620 — CODAN ET AL/NAI JV)

(2005/C 48/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 22 December 2004, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3620. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32004M3620. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          47,659
<SECURITIES>                                    30,360
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,961
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,115
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               100,058
<PP&E>                                          33,680
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,579
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 118,890
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,093
<BONDS>                                        322,899
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         25
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                   (228,691)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   118,890
<SALES>                                            385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   385
<CGS>                                              185
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   20,505
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,294
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (11,807)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,807)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,807)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50


</TABLE>
November 2022

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Helping People Help the Land 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Conservation Practice Overview

Soil Carbon Amendment (Code 336) 

 

Soil Carbon Amendments (SCA) are materials derived from

plant materials or treated animal byproducts. 

These amendments may be applied to the soil to improve

or maintain soil organic matter, sequester carbon and

enhance soil carbon stocks, improve soil aggregate

stability, and/or improve habitat for soil organisms. 

Practice Information 

Soil carbon amendments consisting of compost, biochar, and other carbon-based materials may be

added to improve existing soil conditions. Soils of the planning unit should be evaluated using the

most current planning criteria, field assessments, and benchmark soil tests. 

Materials used as soil carbon amendments should be created by approved methods. An appropriate

laboratory analysis of the material is necessary to determine application rates and if there are any

inherent chemical limitations. 

Apply soil carbon amendments on planning units avoiding sensitive areas. Consider crop sequence,

temperature, and slope. Consider the nutrient content within the amendment to avoid negative

impacts on air, water, plant, or nutrient cycling. 

Operation and maintenance of the soil carbon amendment practice includes calibration of distribution

equipment, monitoring crop health following applications, inspection of fields following precipitation

events to ensure material is staying in place and completing soil health tests after the first application

and then in subsequent years to monitor changes in soil carbon levels and other soil health indicators. 

Common Associated Practices 

Soil Carbon Amendment (336) is commonly applied with practices such as Nutrient Management

(590); Conservation Crop Rotation (328); Cover Crop (340); Residue and Tillage Management, No Till

(329), Residue and Tillage Management, Reduced Till (345), and Critical Area Planting (342). 

For further information, contact your local NRCS field office.
II 

Calendar No. 138 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2122 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 13, 2017 

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT 

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of 

construction of a hydroelectric project involving Jennings 

Randolph Dam. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REINSTATEMENT AND EXTENSION OF TIME 

4 FOR A FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COM5 MISSION PROJECT INVOLVING JENNINGS 

6 RANDOLPH DAM. 

7 (a) EXTENSION OF TIME.—Notwithstanding the time 

8 period specified in section 13 of the Federal Power Act 

9 (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the Federal 

10 Energy Regulatory Commission project numbered 12715 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2122 PCS

1 (referred to in this section as the ‘‘project’’), the Federal 

2 Energy Regulatory Commission (referred to in this section 

3 as the ‘‘Commission’’) may, at the request of the licensee 

4 for the project, and after reasonable notice, in accordance 

5 with the good faith, due diligence, and public interest re6 quirements of, and the procedures of the Commission 

7 under, that section, extend the time period during which 

8 the licensee is required to commence the construction of 

9 the project for not more than 3 consecutive 2-year periods 

10 that begin on the date of the expiration of the extension 

11 originally issued by the Commission. 

12 (b) OBLIGATION OF LICENSEE.—Any obligation of 

13 the licensee for the project for the payment of annual 

14 charges under section 10(e) of the Federal Power Act (16 

15 U.S.C. 803(e)) shall commence on the expiration of the 

16 time period to commence construction of the project, as 

17 extended by the Commission under subsection (a). 

18 (c) REINSTATEMENT OF EXPIRED LICENSE.— 

19 (1) IN GENERAL.—If the period required for 

20 the commencement of construction of the project has 

21 expired before the date of enactment of this Act, the 

22 Commission may reinstate the license effective as of 

23 the date of the expiration of the license. 

24 (2) EXTENSION.—If the Commission reinstates 

25 the license under paragraph (1), the first extension 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2122 PCS

1 authorized under subsection (a) shall take effect on 

2 the date of the expiration of the license. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 12, 2017. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 138 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2122 

AN ACT 

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commenceinvolving Jennings Randolph Dam. ment of construction of a hydroelectric project 

JUNE 13, 2017 

Received; read twice and placed on the calendar 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2004262EN.01002603.xml

| 23.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 262/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/26

---

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 6 July 2004

in Case T-370/02 Alpenhain-Camembert-Werk and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

1

(Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 - Registration of a designation of origin - ‘Feta’ - Application for annulment - Locus standi - Inadmissibility)

(2004/C 262/51)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-370/02: Alpenhain-Camembert-Werk, established in Lehen/Pfaffing (Germany), Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG, established in Tettnang (Germany), Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG, established in Lauben (Germany), Bayerland eG, established in Nuremberg (Germany), Hochland AG, established in Heimenkirch (Germany), Milchwerk Crailsheim-Dinkelsbühl eG, established in Crailsheim (Germany), Rücker GmbH, established in Aurich (Germany), represented by J. Salzwedel and J. Werner, lawyers, having an address for service in Luxembourg, supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: P. Ormond) against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J.L. Iglesias Buhigues, S. Grünheid and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët), supported by the Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontolaimos, I. Chalkias and M. Tassopoulou) and by the Association of Greek Dairy Products Industries (Sevgap), represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer — application for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 of 14 October 2002 amending the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 with regard to the name ‘Feta’ (OJ 2002 L 277, p. 10), in so far as it is a protected designation of origin — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 6 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicants shall bear their own costs and shall pay those of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants shall bear their own costs and shall pay those of the Commission.

| 3. | The Hellenic Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Association of Greek Dairy Products Industries (Sevgap) shall bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Hellenic Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Association of Greek Dairy Products Industries (Sevgap) shall bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1

                      LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

Big Tyme Food Marts, Inc.

Country Day School - Peccole, LLC

Georgetown Construction, Inc

Lake Tonopah, LLC

Levitz Plaza, LLC

Nevada Housing Opportunities, LLC

Nevada Housing Opportunities Manager, LLC

RealNet Commercial Brokerage, Inc.

Saratoga Land and Development, Inc.

Saxton Inc.

Summit Hills, Inc.

Tonopah Manager, Inc.

Hillcrest, Inc.


Note: This list includes entities that are corporations (ie: LLC's) that are
taxed as partnerships.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 8, 2022

No. 04-21-00555-CV

Richard L. FLEMING III,

Appellant

v.

NASA FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,

Appellee

From the County Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020CV0167

Honorable Bill Squires, Judge Presiding

ORDER

After the reporter’s and clerk’s records were filed, Appellant filed his brief on March 7, 

2022, but Appellant’s brief does not comply with Rule 38.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Specifically, the brief has, among others, the following 

defects:

• the Statement of Facts has no citations to the clerk’s or reporter’s records, contra id.

R. 38.1(g);

• the Statement of Facts contains arguments, contra id.; and

• the Argument section does not contain any citations to the clerk’s or reporter’s 

records, contra id. R. 38.1(i).

This court may order a party to amend, supplement, or redraw a brief if it flagrantly 

violates Rule 38. See id. R. 38.9(a). We conclude that the defects described above constitute 

flagrant violations of Rule 38. 

Therefore, we strike Appellant’s brief and order Appellant to file an amended brief 

within ten days of the date of this order. The amended brief must correct all the violations 

listed above and fully comply with the applicable rules. See, e.g., id. R. 9.4, 9.5, 38.1. If the 

amended brief does not comply with this order, we “may strike the brief, prohibit [Appellant] 

from filing another, and proceed as if [Appellant] had failed to file a brief.” See id. R. 38.9(a); 
see also id. R. 38.8(a) (authorizing this court to dismiss an appeal if an appellant fails to timely 

file a brief). 

If Appellant timely files a brief that complies with this order, Appellee’s brief will be due 

thirty days after Appellant’s brief is filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b). 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 8th day of March, 2022.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court