alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 19

- 00210

- CR

KYLE ANDREW BUTLER, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 27535

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION A Lamar County jury convicted Kyle Andrew Butler of two counts of indecency with a child. As a result, Butler was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment for each offense. On appeal, Butler argues that a mistrial based on juror deadlock was improperly d eclared in the prior
trial of this case. Butler’s charges in this case were consolidated for trial with a charge for aggravated sexual assault of a child brought in companion cause number 06

- 19

- 00209

- CR. We addressed the issue raised by Butler in this appeal in our opinion of this date on Butler’ s appeal in cause number 06

- 19

- 00209

- CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude in this matter that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a mistrial and that Butler consented t o the mistrial

. As a result, we overrule Butler’s sole point of error in this appeal.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice
Date Submitted: April 7, 2020 Date Decided: April 14, 2020
Do Not Publish
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A24D0125. SPECIAL HESTER v. LOGANVILLE PROPERTIES KI, LLC

d/b/a ALEXANDER CROSSING PDQ SERVICES INC.

In this dispossessory action, on October 16, 2023, the Magistrate Court of

Walton County entered an order granting a writ of possession to the plaintiff and

against the defendant Special Hester. On October 23, 2023, Hester filed this

application seeking discretionary review of the magistrate court order. We, however,

lack jurisdiction. 

“[T]he only avenue of appeal available from [a] magistrate court judgment is

provided by OCGA § 15-10-41 (b) (1), which allowsfor a de novo appeal to the state

or superior court.” Tate v. Habif, 367 Ga. App. 435, 438-439 (2) (886 SE2d 389)

(2023) (punctuation omitted). Thus, this Court has jurisdiction to address an order of

the magistrate court only if that order has been reviewed by a state or superior court.

See Westwind Corp. v. Washington Fed. S & L Assn., 195 Ga. App. 411, 411 (1) (393

SE2d 479) (1990); Baker v. G. T., Ltd., 194 Ga. App. 450, 451 (3) (391 SE2d 1)

(1990). The Georgia Constitution, however, provides that “[a]ny court shall transfer

to the appropriate court in the state any civil case in which it determines that

jurisdiction or venue lies elsewhere.” Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. I, Par. VIII;

Bosma v. Gunter, 258 Ga. 664, 665 (373 SE2d 368) (1988); accord Court of Appeals

Rule 11 (b). 

November 15, 2023
Accordingly, this application is herebyTRANSFERRED to the Superior Court

of Walton County. 

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/15/2023
# C_2005115EN.01004104.xml

| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/41

---

Removal from the Register of Case T-391/04 (1)

1

(2005/C 115/77)

(Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 14 February 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-391/04, Bernard Nonat v Commission of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 314 of 18.12.2004.

1

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      10,518,000
<SECURITIES>                                50,668,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,237,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   459,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            67,731,000
<PP&E>                                       9,733,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,396,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              88,203,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,595,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        21,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  79,021,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                88,203,000
<SALES>                                      3,245,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,787,000
<CGS>                                          191,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,678,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            10,091,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                75,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (1,127,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,851,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,851,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,851,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.29)


</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 27, 2021

No. 04

- 20

- 00151

- CV

John PORTERFIELD

, Appellant

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY

, Appellee

From the 45 1st Judicial District Court

, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18

- 366

Honorable Kirsten Cohoon , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Because the panel has issued a different opinion, appellee’s motion for en banc

reconsideration is DENIED AS MOOT.

_____________________ ____________ Beth Watkins , J ustice

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

court on this 27th day of October, 2021

.

_____________________ ______________ MICHAEL A. CRU Z

, Clerk of Court
#### *Ex parte*Charles Haughton.

The Supreme Court lias no jurisdiction of an appeal from an order of the court beloiv, allowing- commissions to an administrator.

The case of *Potter*v. Stone, (2 *llawlcs*30,) overruled.

This was an application to the County Court of Chowan, for an allowance of commissions to the administrator of *Thomas B.*Uaughton, deceased. The case commenced in the County Court, and came from the Superior Court of Chowan, upon the appeal of the next of kin. The facts attending the administration of the applicant, together with his accounts, were certified to this court, but need not be stated.

*Iredell,*upon opening the case for the next of kin, was asked by the Chief-Justice if it was not an appeal from the exercise of a discretionary power. The counsel cited *Totter*v- *Stone.*(2 *Hawks*30.)

No counsel appeared for the other side.

*442Henderson, Chief-Justice.

This is an appeal from the discretion of the court below, to that of this court; from a court having the means ant! the power of examining into facts, to one having neither. We can only act ou facts, established either by the admissions of the parties, or the verdict of a jury. Except in equity cases, where we have a *quasi*original jurisdiction, this court has neither the power nor the means of ascertaining facts. And certainly, the commissions to be allowed an executor, administrator or guardian, depend on a great variety of facts. The nature and intricacy of the estate, the difficulty and labour of managing it, all ought to be inquired into; not the bare amount of the receipts and disbursements. This court therefore, has no jurisdiction. It is true, if the court below had allowed commissions, when by law none were due, or re-fused them when legally claimed, those, mistakes in the judgment may be corrected upon appeal ; but we perceive none such here. When we entertained jurisdiction, and decided the case of *Patter*v. *Stone,*the jurisdiction of the court had not been settled. It came close upon the heels of the old Supreme Court, a court of multifarious ¡lowers, in some cases having and exercising jurisdiction on the facts, in others restricted.

'Per Curiam. — Aureal dismissed.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Safety Evaluation Report for the International Isotopes Fluorine Products, Inc. Fluorine Extraction Process and Depleted Uranium Deconversion Plant in Lea County, New Mexico (NUREG–2116)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-2116, (PDF - 2.24 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** May 2012**Date Published:** May 2012

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and SafeguardsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report documents the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) staff review and safety and safeguards evaluation of International Isotopes Fluorine Products, Inc.'s (IIFP), application for a license to construct a Fluorine Extraction Process & Depleted Uranium Deconversion Plant (FEP/DUP) and possess and use source materials. INIS proposes that the FEP/DUP be located in Lea County, New Mexico, approximately 24 kilometers (15 miles) west of the city of Hobbs. The facility will possess natural and depleted uranium, and significant quantities of hazardous chemicals derived from licensed material, e.g., hydrogen fluoride.

The objective of this review is to evaluate the facility's potential adverse impacts on worker and public health and safety, under both normal operations and accident conditions. The review also considers the management organization, administrative programs, and financial qualifications provided to ensure safe design and operation of the facility.

The NRC staff concludes, in this safety evaluation report, that the applicant's descriptions, specifications, and analyses provide an adequate basis for safety of facility operations and that operation of the facility does not pose an undue risk to the worker and public health and safety.

Potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed facility and its reasonable alternatives are addressed in a separate document, “Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Fluorine Extraction Process and Depleted Uranium Deconversion Plant in Lea County, New Mexico,” NUREG-2116. The draft Environmental Impact Statement was published in the *Federal Register,* Vol. 77, dated Friday, January 13, 2012, see pages 2096-2098 and the final EIS is scheduled to be published in the fall of 2012.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 09, 2021
Hri':lrd Pealer Plart I star West Generalim 

• About» 

~ 

• Mana&ement Team 

• OurMtisi>n 

• Our Assets 

• Teclmolo&Y 

• Sitetmp 

• Contact Us » 

• 

lsearch this site... I P 

Our Assets .Hanfurd Peaker P1ant 

Hanford Peaker Plant 

The Ha.nfbrd Peaker is a 98-~gawatt natural gas fueled power pJant bcated in the cen1ral valley ofCaifomia 

on an approximately 15.5 acre site in HanfOrd, CalifOrnia. lla.nfurd co~ts of two GE LM6000 SPRINT 

con:bustion turbines 1hat operate in simpJc cycJe mxte. The LM-6000 engine is an "aero-derivative" design, with 

quick start capability and demomtrated exceDent operating pa.ratmers ofhigh reliability and availability. Natural 

gas is provided to Ha.nfOrd through a pipeline ioterconnectim with the Southern CaJitbmia Gas Company 

(''SoCalGas') system. A se~ catalytic reduction system is en:pbyed fur emissions control Power fi:om the 

p1a.nt substation is delivered to PG&E at their 115 kV swirohyard. 

Hanfonl Peaker Plant IDformation 

!Location IIJianfurd, Calitbmia 

IN et Capacity 8MW 

!star West Ownership 11100% 

~JamC~and ecbnobgy IE GE lM6000 SPRINT c:onDustion turbiles 

1t.Z 
llJ200014 Hanfa"d Pealer Plant I star West Generation 

uel liN atural Gas 

jGas Interconnection lrG&E 

IEiect:rkal Intercomection IIPG&E switchyard@ 115 kV 

jCAISO region ~P-15 

!Power Purchaser IIPG&E 

Main Menu 

• Hmre 

• About 

o Star West Generation 

o OurOwners 

• Manage~ Team 

• Our Mission 

• Our Assets 

• Technohgy 

• Sitemap 

• ContactUs 

o Contact Form 

o Our Locations 

Star West GenerationLLC 12929 ADen Parkway I Suite 2280 I Houston, Texas 770191 Tet (713) 496-9830 

Designed by Internet SEQ Experts 

http://WoYN.starwastgen.canf2013106Jhanford-pealer-plant/ 212
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111993 

TOP SECRET 

)Sf' NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

THE NRO STAFF November 18, 1969 

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 

HANDLE VIA 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. PACKARD 

MR. HELMS 

DR. DuBRIDGE 

14 00003780D 

SUBJECT: Preparation for ExCom Meeting of November 25, 1969 

The NRO has forwarded to you the regular financial report and 

issue sheets for the November 25 meeting. 

To aid the ExCom in making decisions on the program priorities 

and to establish overall funding levels, I believe that this more detailed report will be useful. Similar reports will be submitted in the 

future as necessary. 

Since the August 15 ExCom meeting, several severe budget 

restrictions have been imposed within the Department of Defense 

generally, notably in connection with the 703 exercise. I do not 

believe that the NRP, important as it is, can or should escape the 

serious scrutiny which all defense-related programs are now rece1vmg. The subject/issue papers which you have already received 

are drawn up in such a way that the ExCom can readily establish a 

program at any of the level~ I 

To improve the ability of the NRO . , > carry out its job of developing 

and managing systems which will fulfill the intelligence needs of the 

government v.,r ;· ··· :'1 its area of assigned responsibility, we have established an Am . =- Group within the staff of our Off:ce of Space Systems. 

This group vi· .. ll conduct analyses of proposed new /3tems, the relative 

efficiency o, ,ngoing systems in fulfill:ng requirE- ,mitments, and 

will make rf .. C/i:1mendations with 2sp'- .t to pro2 .Lng. Its work 

will be augmented by ad hoc effor , or ;::;tudies 1-, ·- :1utside consultants. 

TOP SECRET EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

000 DIRECTIVE 5200.10 DOES NOT APPlV 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111993 

CONTROL NO_B_Y_E_1_3_3 C '=- 0 9 

COPY"' OF __ 

PAGE 1 OF __ 2 __ _ 

o/ I I - I Y - t? o::S 
HANDLE VIA 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111993 

I l:11' StUl(l I 

We feel strongly the need for this type of dedicated 

analytical capability. Of course our office will continue 

working closely with the President's Science Advisor's 

Panel on NRP Matters. 

HA.NOi E V:A 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

Comments on how to make this report more useful will be 

appreciated. 

Attachment 

CONTROL NO BYE 13365-69 

BYEMAN TOP SECRET EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

COPY ___ OF ___ COPIES 

PAGE_=2 __ 0F_=2 __ PAGES CONTROL SYSTEM 

000 DIRECTIVE 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111993
NRCS CONSERVATION PRACTICE EFFECTS - NETWORK DIAGRAM October 2017

Road/Trail/Landing Closure 

and Treatment (654)

I.1 (+) 

Soil 

quality

D.4 (+) 

Hydrologic and 

water resource 

condition/quality

D.5 (-) Barriers to 

aquatic organism 

and wildlife 

movement or 

migration

I.5 (+) Water quality

& quantity

D.2 (-) Water and 

wind erosion 

(including dust); 

slope wasting

D.6 (+) Riparian 

condition quality; 

stream channel 

and streambank 

conditions quality

I.8 (-) Landowner 

liability

D.3 (-) 

Concentrated 

water flows

I.6 (+) Aquatic 

and terrestrial 

wildlife habitat

I.4 (+) Air 

quality

C.3 (-) Cost 

of future 

regulatory 

compliance

C.2 (+) Health 

of wildlife 

populations and 

I.3 (-) Airborne biodiversity

particulate matter 

and greenhouse 

gases

I.2 (+) Soil 

organic matter

1. Road, trails, and landings closed 

and treated

2. Landform stabilized or returned to 

natural state 

D.7 (-) 

Vehicle 

traffic

I.7 (+) Safety, 

aesthetics

C.4 (+/-) Income and income stability 

(individuals and community)

C.1 (+) Health and safety 

for humans, domestic 

and wild animals; 

(-) associated costs

D.1 (+) Soil 

structure on 

previously 

compacted 

areas

Initial setting: Existing road, trail, 

and/or landing that will be closed 

and treated to achieve a resource 

objective

Start

Critical Area Planting 

(342) Access Control (472)

Sediment Basin

(350)

Structure for Water 

Control (587)

I.9 (+) Cost of

closure; (-) 

maintenance 

costs

D.8 (+) 

Productive 

land area

D.9 (-) 

Recreational 

access

I.10 (-) Recreation 

business and 

support 

infrastructure

D. Direct effect

#. Created by practice

I. Indirect effect

C. Cumulative effect

Pathway

Notes:

Effects are qualified with a plus 

(+) or minus (-). These symbols 

indicate only an increase (+) or a 

decrease (-) in the effect upon 

the resource, not whether the 

effect is beneficial or adverse.

LEGEND

Mitigating practice

Associated practice
# C_2004251EN.01001701.xml

| 9.10.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 251/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/17

---

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 2 July 2004

in Case T-422/03 R II, Enviro Tech Europe Ltd and Enviro Tech International Inc. v Commission of the European Communities

(Interim Measures - Directives 67/548/EEC and 2004/73/EC - Conditions of admissibility)

(2004/C 251/31)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-422/03 R II, Enviro Tech Europe Ltd, established in Surrey (United Kingdom), Enviro Tech International Inc., established in Chicago (United States), represented by C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, avocats, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: X. Lewis and F. Simonetti, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application seeking, first, ‘suspension of the inclusion of nPB’ in the 29th adaptation to technical progress of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 234); secondly, suspension of implementation of the inclusion of nPB in Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004 adapting to technical progress for the twenty-ninth time Directive 67/548 (OJ 2004 L 252, p. 1); and, thirdly, that other interim measures be ordered — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 2 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The application for interim measures is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0812 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2013-CE-023-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
# C_2005130EN.01000901.xml

| 27.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 130/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 130/9

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2483 — Group Canal+/RTL/GJCD/JV)

(2005/C 130/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 13 November 2001, 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 (EEC) No 4064/89. 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 32001M2483. 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 32001M2483. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---