alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 2 8 , 2015

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00654

- CR

CHAD SMALL , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1383973

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

Appellant was charged with four offenses in four separate causes: (1) aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon in cause 1383973, which is the cause underlying this attempted appeal; (2) burglary of a habitation in cause 1349797; (3) assault of a family member in cause 13 49798 ; and (4) possession of a
pr ohibited item in a correctional facility in cause 1427347

. Pursuant to a charge bargain , which is a type of plea bargain, the state2

dismissed the charges in the latter two causes (1349798 and 1427347) in exchange for appel lant’s guilty plea in the underlying cause (1383793). 1 The state said punishment should be based on the recommendation in the forthcoming pre

sentence investigation report. The trial court sentenced appellant to 25 years in prison. The certification of the defendant’s righ t to appeal says this is a plea

- bargain case and the defendant has no right to appeal. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

On appellant’s motion, w e abated the appeal for the trial court to review the record and, if necessary, correct the certification of the defendant’s right to appeal. The trial court held a hearing on April 8, 2015. The state submitted, and the trial court admitted, the motions to dismiss in causes 1349798 and 1427347 as evidence of the charge bargain. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ruled this is indeed a plea

- bargain case and the defendant has no right to appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. S ee Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). Because this is a plea

- bargain case, appellant has the right to appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after receiving the trial court’s permission to appeal. Kennedy v. State , 297 S.W.3d 338, 340

– 41 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Shankle v. State , 119 S.W.3d 808, 812

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (holding that state’s agreeing not to prosecute defendant in a separate cause constituted a charge bargain).

The record does not reflect the trial court’s permission to appeal or any pretrial motions that could be appealed. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

1 After the trial court dismissed cause 1349798 on the state’s motion, appellant attempted to appeal from that cause. We dismissed that appeal because an order granting the state’s motion to dismiss is not an appealable order. See No. 14

– 14

– 00653

- CR, Small v. State (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 4, 2014) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication).3 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Donovan
Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
GHG Reporting Sub Part W Potential Impacts

Impacted Facilities Number of Facilities Cost For Additional

Annual Inspection

Cost For Optical

Scanning/InfraredCameras

Cost For Additional

Administration/ Record

Retention

Cost Inspect

Normal Cycle

City Gate Stations

State A 4 162 $ $ 64,500 N/A

State B 91 3,686 $ $ 387,000 N/AState C 179 7,251 $ $ 129,000 N/AState D 38 1,539 $ $ 129,000 N/AState E 0 $                         ‐ ‐ $ N/AState F 0 $                         ‐ ‐ $ N/ASubtotal $ 12,639 $ 709,500

District Regulator Stations at Pipeline

State A 0

State B

State C 150 6,077 $ $ 129,000

State D 97 3,929 $ $ 64,500State E 100 4,051 $ $ 64,500State F 50 2,026 $ $ 64,500Subtotal $ 16,082 $ 322,500

District Regulator Stations

State A 792 32,084 $ $ 193,500 1 FTE ‐ $60,000

State B 1654 67,004 $ $ 774,000 1 FTE ‐ $60,000State C 880 35,649 $ $ 193,500 .5 FTE ‐ $30,000State D 238 9,641 $ $ 193,500 .5 FTE ‐ $30,000State E 1836 74,376 $ $ 967,500 .5 FTE ‐ $30,000State F 936 37,917 $ $ 967,500 .5 FTE ‐ $30,000

Subtotal $ 256,671 $ 3,289,500Industrials Meters / Served by transmision

pipeline
Impacted Facilities Number of Facilities Cost For Additional

Annual Inspection

Cost For Optical

Scanning/InfraredCameras

Cost For Additional

Administration/ Record

Retention

Cost Inspect

Normal Cycle

State A 9 729 $ N/A

State B 77 6,239 $ N/AState C 10 810 $ N/AState D 6 486 $ N/AState E 8 648 $ N/AState F 0 N/A
Impacted Facilities Number of Facilities Cost For Additional

Annual Inspection

Cost For Optical

Scanning/InfraredCameras

Cost For Additional

Administration/ Record

Retention

Cost Inspect

Normal Cycle

Subtotal $ 8,912All other Industrial Meters

State A 342 17,318 $ $ 129,000

State B 749 37,927 $ $ 193,500State C 77 3,899 $ $ 64,500State D 205 10,381 $ $ 129,000State E 598 30,281 $ $ 193,500State F 110 5,570 $ $ 64,500

Subtotal $ 105,377 $ 774,000Commercial M&R Stations

State A 7,000 212,678 $ 1 FTE ‐ $60,000

State B 7458 226,593 $ 1 FTE ‐ $60,000State C 1730 52,562 $State D 614 18,655 $State E 7026 213,467 $ .5 FTE ‐ $30,000State F 1530 46,485 $

Subtotal $ 770,439Residential Customer

State A 755000

State B 1350000State C 235000State D 111000State E 442673State F 104711

$ 2,340,242 $ 10,191,000 $390,000
Impacted Facilities Number of Facilities Cost For Additional

Annual Inspection

Cost For Optical

Scanning/InfraredCameras

Cost For Additional

Administration/ Record

Retention

Cost Inspect

Normal Cycle

Cost Analysis Drive Time

Inspect/Document

1st Time

Inspect/Document

2nd Time Scanners Needed

City gate / DRS 0 60 $ $ 30

Industrial on Trans 60 60 $ $ 30

Industrial 25 60 $ $ 30

Commercial 15 30 $ $ 15

Cost for Optical Scanners $64,000 1 per 4,000 Commercial
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                           5
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      4,256
<SECURITIES>                                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                              19,417
<ALLOWANCES>                                  901
<INVENTORY>                                22,368
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           46,726
<PP&E>                                     32,799
<DEPRECIATION>                             11,030
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            141,996
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      14,192
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           0
<PREFERRED>                                     0
<COMMON>                                       81
<OTHER-SE>                                114,161
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              141,996
<SALES>                                    91,383
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           91,383
<CGS>                                      35,284
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              35,284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            643
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            11,504
<INCOME-TAX>                                4,424
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         7,080
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                7,080
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                0.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                0.59
         

</TABLE>
qe, 3 / c G/ 5

..,111111111419 1

--T-OF-SECRETManna CMS INIONAISC Disease.,

Poe souteve sun Is IOU MIT ant,V

-TOP-SECRET

/ J, 1 •

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

)9{NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHINGTON. D.C.

March 12, 1969 '

MEMORANDUM FOR CHAI RMAN, UNITED STATES

SUBJECT: Study of Requirements for'

Reconnaissance Responsive

Needs

INTELLIGENCE BOARD

Satellite

(dications

The attached NRO Staff study was prepared in response

to your letter of February 14, 1968 requesting an assessment

of the feasibility and cost of a collection system that

would meet the objectives set forth in the study by the

Committee on Image ► Re uirements and Exploitation (COMIREX),

"Requirements for Satellite Reconnaissance

Responsive to War n •a 'Es Needs" January 5, 1968.

The COMIREX requirements objectives call for an re

adout capability.

reconnaissance system with real-time or near rea -

Although, as noted in the NRO

f

study, only one type of near real-time readout system has

been developed, tested and demonstrated through applied

research and advanced development of the system elements to

the degree which would warrant a decision for full scale

development at this time, there are a number of promising

new technological developments which may offer potentially

more effective and, in the long term, more economic systems

if full-scale development is initiated one or more years

from now. These new developments are in various stages of

progress ranging from early research on critical elements

to engineering model tests. The rapidly advancing technology

in fieldgrhaving potential application to reconnaissance

readout systems and the varied status of devices and components currently in research and development, makes it very

difficult to make predictions of the technical feasibility,

operational effectiveness and costs of systems based on

some of the newer developments. The NW study, as it relates

FoLo..:Ire"

-;":•

%-••• n••14:1a:.:..r1
Alexander H. Flax

41111112680 6,

MO Of COPSES

PSSE Of Min

18•14U11111111

1111111111-Tmatnmenweia- --TOP-SECRE 'mem owe monsoon T

.

Soo outictivi sass 4 mos sot Amity

-1014-EGRET---

to these newer developments, is of necessity based on the

limited data presently available and on projections of the

performance which may be achieved as a result of on-going

or planned research and development.

Particular attention has been givon in the NRO study

to identifying those factors in the COMEX requirements

objectives which need further refinement or clarification

in order to completely define a Warning/Indications system.

Also, requirements factors which have significant effects on

system costs have been highlighted with a view to providing

a basis for further tradeoff studies of requirements versus

system capability and cost.

Attachment idaff,Study 1;i7t-Of
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WAYNE GINNIS,

Petitioner

- Appellant,

v.

J. T. SHARTLE, Warden,

Respondent

- Appellee. No. 18

- 17255

D.C. No. 4:17

- cv

- 00515

- JAS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

James Alan Soto, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2019 **

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges

.

Federal prisoner Wayne Ginnis appeals pro se from the district court’s denial

of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm

.

Ginn is contends that he is entitled to a recalculation of his sentence to

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAY 29 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 17255

correct an error regarding his target release date and to include credit for time

served. We review the denial of a habeas petition de novo, and review factual

findings for clear error. See Zavala v. Ives , 785 F.3d 367 , 37 0 (9th Cir. 2015).

Because the time that Ginnis seeks to credit to his federal sentence was credited to

his state sentence, he is not entitled to any additional credit for time served. See 18

U

. S

. C

. § 3585 (b); United States v. Wilson , 503 U.S. 329, 337 (1992). We therefore

affirm the district court’s denial of relief as to this claim. See Manta v. Chertoff

,

518 F.3d 1134, 1146 (9th Cir. 2008) (appellate court may affirm on any ground

supported by the record). The district court and the magistrate judge stated that the

proper target release date for his sentence is April 3, 2020, rather than August 17,

2020. We agree with the district court that this issue is best addressed in a separate

habeas proceeding.

Ap pellant’s motion to file a supplemental brief is granted. The clerk will

file the brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 11.

AFFIRMED

.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 6713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02380]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 5, 2015.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior 
Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Guaranty Bancshares, Inc., Mount Pleasant, Texas; to acquire 100 
percent of the voting shares of Texas Leadership Bank, Royse City, 
Texas.


Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 3, 2015.
Michael J. Lewandowski,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2015-02380 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1988 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1988

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1730 18th Street in Bakersfield, California, as the ``Merle Haggard 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 6, 2017

 Mr. McCarthy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 1730 18th Street in Bakersfield, California, as the ``Merle Haggard 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. MERLE HAGGARD POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1730 18th Street in Bakersfield, California, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Merle Haggard Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Merle 
Haggard Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1047/2006

of 10 July 2006         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 July 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 10 July 2006.

For the Commission

J. L. DEMARTY            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 386/2005 (OJ L 62, 9.3.2005, p. 3).

----

ANNEX

to Commission Regulation of 10 July 2006 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 750/2005 (OJ L 126, 19.5.2005, p. 12). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
#### Arnold, Appellant, vs. Fridley and others, Respondents.

Appeal from orders dated June 30, 1927, and judgment dated July 5, 1927, of the superior court of Douglas county: Archibald McKay, Judge.

Action for damages. Orders sustaining demurrers to complaint affirmed; judgment dismissing action, from which plaintiff appeals.

For the appellant: *Ernest A. Arnold*of Duluth.

For the respondent *Fridley: Grace, Fridley & Crawford*of Superior.

For the respondent *McCabe,*executrix: *Powell & , Sprowls*of Superior.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .gov**
A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

National Security Agency/Central Security Service

Search
Search

Search

-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Mission & Combat Support             
  -  Cybersecurity             
  -  Signals Intelligence             
  -  Central Security Service             
  -  Locations             
  -  Research             
  -  Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Accessibility             
  -  Cybersecurity Collaboration Center      -  Collaborative Partnerships             
    -  Enduring Security Framework             
    -  DIB Cybersecurity Services             
    -  Standards and Certifications             
    -  Artificial Intelligence Security Center 
-  Press Room    -  Press Releases & Statements             
  -  News & Highlights             
  -  Declassification & Transparency Initiatives             
  -  Cybersecurity Advisories & Guidance             
  -  Telework and Mobile Security Guidance             
  -  DoD Microelectronics Guidance             
  -  Research Publications 
-  Careers    -  Unique Pathways             
  -  Innovation 
-  History    -  National Cryptologic Museum             
  -  Cryptologic History             
  -  National Cryptologic Memorial 

# Current Images

HomeHistoryNational Cryptologic MuseumExhibits & ArtifactsCryptologic MuseumCurrent Exhibits

Search

Search

                              - All Images 
                              - Design Elements 
                              - NSA Historical Photographs 
                              - Other 

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (0.82 MB)

Tags:Morrison Center, NSA-Washington , NSAW East Campus

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<NAME> DAILEY INTERNATIONAL, INC.
<CIK>  0001015360
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          32,843
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,803
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                70,786
<PP&E>                                          30,395
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,140
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 272,173
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           30,090
<BONDS>                                        275,060
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           106
<OTHER-SE>                                    (40,291)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   272,173
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               132,317
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  204,404
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    42
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,429
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (93,133)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,115
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (95,248)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (17,579)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (112,827)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (11.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (11.46)
        

</TABLE>