alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Abatement Order filed December 17, 2019 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00760-CR

____________

ROGELIO ALBERTO GUARADO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 174th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1524175

ABATEMENT ORDER

Appellant Rogelio Alberto Guarardo appeals his conviction for aggravated 

assault. The clerk’s record contains conflicting information about appellant’s right 

to appeal. The record reflects appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty under a 

plea-bargain agreement. In exchange for appellant’s waiver of his right to appeal, 

the State consented to appellant’s waiver of his right to jury trial. See Tex. Code 

Crim. Proc. art. 1.13(a) (“The defendant in a criminal prosecution for any offense 

other than a capital felony case in which the state notifies the court and the 
defendant that it will seek the death penalty shall have the right, upon entering a 

plea, to waive the right of trial by jury, conditioned, however, that, except as 

provided by Article 27.19, the waiver must be made in person by the defendant in 

writing in open court with the consent and approval of the court, and the attorney 

representing the state.”) (emphasis added). Such a waiver is enforceable against a 

defendant. See Jones v. State, 488 S.W.3d 801, 807–08 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016); Ex 

parte Broadway, 301 S.W.3d 694, 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). The trial court 

entered a written certification as required by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure

25.2(a)(2) and 25.2(d). Tex. R. App. P. 25.2. The certification, signed by appellant, 

reflects that “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” We are therefore 

required to dismiss this appeal unless we conclude the trial court’s certification is

defective. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 613 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). 

Although the record does not reflect the certification is defective, four 

months after the certification, the trial court entered another certification that this 

“is not a plea-bargain case, and the defendant has the right of appeal.” Thus, the 

record presents conflicting information about appellant’s right to appeal. 

We abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for entry of an 

amended certification clarifying appellant’s right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 

25.2(f). The Harris County District Clerk shall file a supplemental clerk’s record 

containing the trial court’s amended certification with this court within thirty days 

of the date of this order. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 34.5(c)(2), 37.1.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Bourliot.
# CE2004084EN.01034101.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/341 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/341

---

(2004/C 84 E/0400)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0240/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Subject:   Huge discount from banks to the ‘Democratici di Sinistra’ party in violation of the principle of free competition

Subject:

On 22 December 2003, the banking syndicate providing credit to the Italian political party Democratici di Sinistra (Democrats of the Left) — headed by the Carisbo Bank (San Paolo — IMI Group), with a claim of around EUR 30 million, and also comprising Banca Intesa and Capitalia, each with claims of EUR 21 million, and Monte dei Paschi di Siena, with a claim of around EUR 3,5 million — reached an agreement on total debt clearance via a settlement transaction providing for the writing-off of 50 % of the colossal overall debt of EUR 235 million. This huge discount was granted to a political party in precisely the same period in which shareholders and bondholders in companies with ties to the above-mentioned banks saw their legitimate interests being damaged and in which the selfsame banks implemented a rigid policy on overdraft reduction vis-à-vis debtor SMEs.

Would the Commission agree that this privileged treatment, which contrasts with that afforded by many banks to ‘ordinary’ debtors, constitutes a grave and manifest violation of the principle of free competition enshrined in Community law?

Will the European Central Bank call on the Italian Central Bank, Bankitalia, to ensure respect for this principle and the provisions of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on European Union, not least because some of the Italian banks concerned are Bankitalia shareholders (controllers ‘controlled’)?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

(5 March 2004)

In the area of competition policy, the Commission is responsible for the application of Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty.

Article 81 of the EC Treaty prohibits agreements between undertakings, decisions of associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the common market. According to Article 82 of the EC Treaty, any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited insofar as it may affect trade between Member States.

The facts described by the Honourable Member do not amount to an infringement of the competition rules, in particular articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, since there is no evidence of a prevention, restriction or distortion of competition or an abuse of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it that may affect trade between Member States.

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that it cannot take a position on matters concerning the European Central Bank.

---
# CE2004088EN.01055301.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/553 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/553

---

(2004/C 88 E/0564)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0946/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 March 2004)

Subject:   School milk in Portugal

Subject:

I have learned that in Portugal, a significant number of Portuguese schools are being supplied with milk provided by Spanish companies, although Portuguese production is adequate to the task and Portugal is in economic recession.

In view of the difficulties of Portuguese milk producers in selling their product, is it not possible for the ‘milk for schools’ programme to make preferential use of nationally produced milk, and thus participate in protecting small milk producers and family farms, since there is no question of the specific nature of Portuguese agriculture?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

(30 April 2004)

The Commission, while emphasising the value of the scheme for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, considers that the actual operation of the EU School Milk Scheme should be consistent with horizontal internal market policies, notably competition policy.

Therefore, it is excluded to discriminate the suppliers of school milk on the basis of their nationality.

---
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1727 

To rename the National Florence Crittenton Mission. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 9, 2015 

Mr. WYDEN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To rename the National Florence Crittenton Mission. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NATIONAL CRITTENTON FOUNDATION. 

4 Section 1 of the Act of April 9, 1898, entitled an Act 

5 ‘‘To incorporate the National Florence Crittenton Mis6 sion’’ is amended by striking ‘‘National Florence 

7 Crittenton Mission’’ and inserting ‘‘The National 

8 Crittenton Foundation’’. 

Æ 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
98-81.

#### Cappara v. Schibley.

Cuyahoga App. Nos. 71070, 71368 and 71399. Reported at 85 Ohio St.3d 403, 709 N.E.2d 117. On motion for reconsideration and motion to supplement record. Motions denied.

Douglas, Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 

OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 

STATE CAPITOL 

600 E BOULEVARD AVE DEPT 125 

BISMARCK, ND 58505-0040 

(701) 328-2210 FAX (701) 328-2226 

Wayne Stenehjem www.ag.nd.gov 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

October 25, 2011 

Mr. James B. Martin 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA, Region 8 

1595 Wynkoop Street 

Denver, CO 80202-1129 

Re:	 Request for Extension of Comment Period re Docket No. EPA-R08-0AR-2010­

0406; 76 FR 58570, Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North 

Dakota; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan 

for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Regional Haze 

(Proposed Action) 

Dear Regional Administrator Martin: 

The pUblic comment period in the above-referenced proceeding is scheduled to end on 

November 21, 2011. As you know, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a 

public hearing in Bismarck, North Dakota on October 13, 2011. At the public hearing, I 

requested that EPA promptly grant a 30-day extension to the public comment period. As of 

the date of this letter, I have not received any response from EPA to my request to extend 

the comment period. 

The State of North Dakota is working diligently to submit its comments on EPA's Proposed 

Action. However, the 60-day comment period is simply not enough time to fully review 

EPA's Proposed Action and provide meaningful comments. The State of North Dakota 

requires additional time to prepare and submit its comments to the Proposed Action for 

several reasons, including: (1) the issues raised in the Proposed Action are technically and 

legally complex, requiring extensive technical review and consideration; (2) EPA's 

Proposed Action is quite lengthy (the proposed rule is 79 pages and the technicai support 

document is even larger); and (3) the Proposed Action - if adopted - would have 

significant negative consequences for North Dakota and its citizens. 

Accordingly, I am requesting that the comment period be extended to December 21, 2011, 

and that a response to my request be made as soon as possible, 

Wayne Stenehjem 

Attorney General 

cc-!"'Gail Fallon, EPA Region VIII
#### Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P., Appellant, v Eileen S. McHugh et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

[773 NYS2d 538]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered December 16, 2002, which, in a mortgage foreclosure action, granted defendants’ motion to vacate the deficiency judgment entered against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the order on appeal states that the IAS court found that plaintiffs service of its motion for a deficiency judgment was “defective,” the clear import of the IAS court’s decision, made after a traverse hearing, is that neither defendant obtained any kind of notice of such motion within the 90-day period, commencing with delivery of the referee’s deed, for making such a motion (RPAPL 1371 [2]; *see Arbor Natl. Commercial Mtge. v Carmans Plaza,*305 AD2d 622, 622-623 [2003]). Upon review of the record, we too find insufficient evidence to establish that either defendant obtained actual notice of the motion within the 90-day period. Such failure of service is a complete bar to the entry of a deficiency judgment *(id.*at 623; *D’Ambra v Haynor,*293 AD2d 858 [2002]; *compare Columbus Realty Inv. Corp. v Weng-Heng Tsiang,*226 AD2d 259 [1996]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                   Exhibit 23(b)



                      REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS ON
                          FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULE


To the Board of Directors of
CITATION Computer Systems, Inc.



Our audits of the consolidated financial statements referred to in our report
dated May 6, 1999, appearing on page 26 of the Financial Information for the
year ended March 31, 1999 insert to the 1999 Annual Report to Shareholders of
CITATION Computer Systems, Inc. (which report and consolidated financial
statements are incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB)
also included an audit of the Financial Statement Schedule included in this Form
10-KSB. In our opinion, this Financial Statement Schedule presents fairly, in
all material respects, the information set forth therein when read in
conjunction with the related consolidated financial statements.





PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

St. Louis, Missouri
May 6, 1999
# CE2004084EN.01088001.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/880 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/880

---

(2004/C 84 E/0974)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0785/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2004)

Subject:   Deportation of parents of Irish/EU citizens

Subject:

Is the Commission aware that 11 000 parents of children born in Ireland are currently at risk of being forced to leave Ireland? This is despite the fact that the children concerned were born in Ireland and are therefore Irish/EU citizens. The policy of allowing the deportation of parents of Irish/EU child citizens may mean that these children could be forced to leave Ireland and accompany their parents to live in countries where their rights, set out in the European Convention on Human Rights, might not be protected.

Has the Commission been in contact with the Irish Government concerning the rights of Irish/EU citizens whose parents face deportation? Does the Commission agree that this policy discriminates against those child citizens whose parents are third-country nationals?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

(7 April 2004)

The situation described by the Honourable Member involves children born in Ireland to parents who are nationals of non-Member States. Like anyone born in Ireland, these children have acquired Irish nationality by ius soli. On the question of the expulsion of nationals, Article 3(1) of Protocol No 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights states that ‘No one shall be expelled, by means either of an individual or of a collective measure, from the territory of the State of which he is a national’.

However, in so far as these children have not exercised the right to free movement by leaving Ireland to reside in another Member State, it is not possible to apply the principles of Community law in this case. Consequently, Irish law — even on expulsion — will apply to the situation of children born in Ireland to nationals of non-Member States, and the Commission is not in a position to answer the questions raised by the Honourable Member.

---
# History of MOL 

A Declassified History
current page

### Index, Declassified Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) Records

The Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) was a 1960s Air Force program with the ostensible mission to place military personnel in orbit to conduct scientific experiments to determine the “military usefulness” of placing man into space and the techniques and procedures for doing so if the need ever arose. The actual, classified, mission of the MOL program was to place a manned surveillance satellite into orbit. At the time, several military and contractor studies estimated that manned surveillance satellites could acquire photographic coverage of the Soviet Union with resolution better than the best system at the time (the first generation Gambit satellite). Additionally, the Air Force billed the MOL as a reconnaissance system that could more efficiently and quickly adjust coverage for crises and targets of opportunity than unmanned systems. The Air Force controlled development of the satellite, which was consistent with MOL’s unclassified mission, while the NRO ran development of the covert reconnaissance mission of the program, including the camera system and other subsystems.

Secretary of Defense McNamara publicly announced the start of the MOL program in December 1963. However, even though the program had support for the military and the President, it was seldom fully funded due to competition from other DoD programs, NASA, and general governmental budgetary pressure. By the time initial studies, planning, and organization were completed and the program was ready to expand into full-scale development and production in the late-60s, budgetary pressure had significantly increased due to NASA’s Apollo program and the Vietnam War. At a time when the program required increased expenditures, its budget was being slashed, and as a result, its timelines and costs were expanded and increased. With growing pressure from the expansion of the Vietnam War, the perceived duplication of effort with NASA programs, and improved performance of operating unmanned surveillance systems, in June 1969 the President cancelled the MOL program, and with it, the Air Force’s last chance to develop a manned space flight program. The MOL program operated for five and one half years and spent $1.56 billion, but never launched a manned vehicle into space.

Click below to view MOL pictures.

Click**here** to read **The DORIAN Files Revealed: A Compendium of the NRO's Manned Orbiting Laboratory Documents** (36.8 MB)

Click **here**to watch *Meet the Astronauts of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory*video.

Adobe® Reader® is needed to view Adobe PDF files. If you don't already have Adobe Reader installed, you may download the current version at www.adobe.com (opens in a new window).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1996
<CASH>                                           2,159
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,348
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,037
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,553
<PP&E>                                          12,235
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,175
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,649
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,109
<BONDS>                                          5,187
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           204
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,779
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,649
<SALES>                                          6,258
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,258
<CGS>                                            3,875
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,875
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   698
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    10
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  55
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,620
<INCOME-TAX>                                       610
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,010
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,010
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM UNITED
INTERNATIONAL  HOLDINGS,  INC.'S FORM 10-K FOR THE TEN MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   10-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          35,608
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,788
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               175,910
<PP&E>                                         665,242
<DEPRECIATION>                                 201,183
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,542,095
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          326,552
<BONDS>                                      1,939,289
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           56,286
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           406
<OTHER-SE>                                    (863,389)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,542,095
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               254,068
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  122,811
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               159,045
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,686
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             163,227
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (545,532)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (545,532)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (545,532)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (13.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ZACHARY HILL §

§

vs

. § Case No. 01

- 14

- 0 0945

- CR

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS §

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THIS COURT:

Appellant Zachary Hill , through counsel, moves the Court to extend time to file

his brief, due July 30

, 2015

, for the following reasons:

1

. Counsel, Assistant Public Defender, Melissa Martin has been working on many

case s including, but not limited to Humphrey v. State , 14

- 15

- 00226

- CR; Carter v. State , 01

-

14

- 01006

- CR ; Gilder v. State, PD

- 0975

- 15; as well as the instant case and has been unable

to complete the brief despite due diligence.

2

. This is the first request for an extension in this case.

In view of the foregoi ng, Mr. Hill asks the Court to extend the time to file his

brief for 30 days, or up to and including August 29

, 2015

. This request is made in the

interest of justice and effective assistance of counsel and not for purposes of delay.

Respectfully submitted,

ALEXANDER BUNIN

Chief, Harris County Public Defender’s Office

/s/ Melissa Martin

_________________________________ MELISSA MARTIN

Assistant Public Defender

TX. Bar No. 24002532

1201 Franklin St., 13 th Fl.

Houston, TX 77002

email: melissa.martin@pdo.hctx.net

713/274

- 6709 Fax 713/437

- 4319 ACCEPTED

01-14-00945-CR

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

7/31/2015 10:45:17 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of the foregoing motion was electronically served on the

Harris County District Attorney’s office on July 31 , 2015

.

/s/ Melissa M artin

____________________

_______ ______ Melissa Martin