alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 03-14-00570-CR

ERIC BYRON CRAYTON § IN THE THIRD

§

V. § COURT OF APPEALS

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS § AUSTIN, TEXAS

STATE’S LETTER OF AN ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT:

Now comes the State of Texas, Appellee in the above-styled and -numbered

cause, and files this its Letter of an Additional Authority

. The State submitted its

brief on July 3, 2015

. In both Appellant ’ s Brief (February 2, 2015) and Reply Brief

(August 17, 2015), Appellant relied in part on Pannell v. State , 7 S.W.3d 222, 223

(Tex. App.

— Dallas 1999, pet. ref ’ d), arguing that “ the defendant [must] be aware

that the thing he altered, destroyed or concealed was evidence in the investigation

as it existed at the time.... ” Reply Brief at 12. Although Pannell is not ‘ red flagged ’

in Westlaw, while researching another case today, the State located the Court of

Criminal Appeals case Williams v. State , in which the Court stated:

Pannell grafts a fourth element onto section 37.09(a)(1), and a narrow

reading of the statute does not support Pannell ’ s conclusion that a

person must be “aware that the thing he altered, destroyed, or

concealed was evidence in the investigation as it existed at the time of

the alteration, destruction, or concealment.”

.... By not requiring an

exercise in evidentiary theory, the statute is more reflective of

investigatory reality, envisioning an offender who intends for, but is

not necessarily aware of, the impairment of something's role as

evidence in the investigation. ACCEPTED

03-14-00570-CR

12977510

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

9/29/2016 2:22:40 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK2

In conclusion , Appellant ’ s challenge depends upon an additional

element to section 37.09(a)(1), introduced by Pannell. This element is

not supported by the language of the st atute and, therefore,

Appellant ’ s challenge has no statutory foundation. Moreover,

Pannell ’ s fourth element renders the statute impractical and unfit for

its purpose.

270 S.W.3d 140, 144 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008)

. Accordingly, the State submits the

foregoing L e t t e r o

f a n A d d i t i o n a l A u t h o r i t

y i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e

.

R espectfully submitted,

/s/ Joshua D. Presley

Joshua D. Presley SBN: 24088254

preslj@co .comal.tx.us

Comal Criminal District Attorney ’s Office

150 N. Seguin Avenue, Suite 307

New Braunfels, Texas 78130

Ph: (830) 221

- 1300 / Fax: (830) 608

- 2008

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Joshua D. Presley

, Assistant D istrict A ttorney for the State of Texas,

Appellee, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this State’s Letter of an Additional Authority has been delivered t o Appellant E R I C B Y R O N C R A Y T O N ’s

attorney in this matter :

R i c h a r d E

. W e t z e l

w e t z e l

_ l a w @ 1 4 1 1 w e s t

. c o m

1 4 1 1 W e s t A v e n u e

A u s t i n

, T X 7 8 7 0 1

C o u n s e l f o r A p p e l l a n t o n A

p p e a l

b y electronically sending it to the foregoing email address through

efile.txcourts .gov , this 2 9 th day of S e p t e m b e r

, 2016

.

/s/ Joshua D. Presley

Joshua D. Presley
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            4312
<SECURITIES>                                      3512
<RECEIVABLES>                                     7264
<ALLOWANCES>                                       425
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 17860
<PP&E>                                            6736
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3907
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   24414
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             8802
<BONDS>                                            183
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             7
<OTHER-SE>                                       15363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     24414
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  5170
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     2742
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  4286
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  81<F1>
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1777)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        14
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1791)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.27)
<FN>
<F1>Interest Income
</FN>


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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS OF NETLOJIX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS
OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATION FOR
THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                             662
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,365
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,673
<PP&E>                                           1,348
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,320
<BONDS>                                          1,074
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           145
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,363
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,903
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,539
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,137
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,946
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  50
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,587)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,587)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,587)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.35)


</TABLE>
p.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

56) IV-E-51 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/200811:57:59 AM Sheet 56 of 117 
P.2 

037 B-^ 

April 11,2000 

NOTE TO: Docket A-90-37 

SUBJECT: Meeting Summary 

January 12,2000 

EPA Staff Meeting With Congressional Representatives on 

On January 12,2000, EPA staff met with several members of the staff of Representative 

Macintosh (R-IN). The following EPA staff attended: Alan Eckert and Jon DeVine, OGC; 

Elizabeth Cummings, OCL; Bill Harnett, OAR. Congressional staff expressed concern about the 

New Source Review public stakeholder meeting to be held the following day. They raised 

concerns about discussing the proposal of the utility Clean Energy Group. Specifically, 

Congressional staff were concerned that any discussion of C02 emission limits (which were 

raised by the Clean Energy Group in their proposal) could violate the KnoUenberg Amendment. 

Congressional staff were further concerned that any EPA action that would have the effect of 

limiting C02 could violate the KnoUenberg Amendment. Congressional staff and EPA staff then 

discussed their differing interpretations of the KnoUenberg Amendment, and Congressional staff 

asked EPA to mention concern about violating the KnoUenberg Amendment at the upcoming 

stakeholder meeting.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6034 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify certain required mens 

rea elements for offenses pertaining to the handling of sensitive information by government officials, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 

Mr. RATCLIFFE (for himself, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. GOWDY, Mr. CHAFFETZ, 

Mr. HURD of Texas, and Mr. POE of Texas) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to clarify certain 

required mens rea elements for offenses pertaining to 

the handling of sensitive information by government officials, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Classified Information 

5 Protection Act of 2016’’. 

6 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF CERTAIN MENS REA ELEMENTS. 

7 (a) GATHERING, TRANSMITTING OR LOSING DE8 FENSE INFORMATION.—Section 793 of title 18, United 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6034 IH

1 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol2 lowing: 

3 ‘‘(i) In a prosecution under subsection (f), the Gov4 ernment need not prove that the defendant intended to 

5 cause harm to the United States.’’. 

6 (b) UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL AND RETENTION OF

7 CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS OR MATERIAL.—Section 1924 

8 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 

9 the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(d) In a prosecution under subsection (a), the Gov11 ernment need not prove that the defendant intended to 

12 cause harm to the United States.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# EUR-Lex - 32001R1159 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R1159

**Council Regulation (EC) No 1159/2001 of 11 June 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous common customs tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products **

*
Official Journal L 169 , 23/06/2001 P. 0001 - 0004 *

Council Regulation (EC) No 1159/2001

of 11 June 2001

amending Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 temporarily suspending the autonomous common customs tariff duties on certain industrial, agricultural and fishery products

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 26 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas:

(1) It is in the interest of the Community to suspend partially or totally the autonomous common customs tariff duties for a number of new products not listed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96(1).

(2) A number of products which are referred to in the said Regulation should be withdrawn from the list in the said Annex because it is no longer in the Community's interest to maintain suspension of autonomous common customs tariff duties or because the description needs to be altered in the light of technical developments.

(3) Products whose description needs to be altered should be regarded as new products,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1255/96 is amended as follows:

1. the products set out in Annex I to this Regulation shall be inserted;

2. the products for which the codes are set out in Annex II to this Regulation shall be deleted.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply with effect from 1 July 2001.

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

Done at Luxembourg, 11 June 2001.

For the Council

The President

M. Sahlin

(1) OJ L 158, 29.6.1996, p. 1. Regulation last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2801/2000 (OJ L 331, 27.12.2000, p. 1).

ANNEX I

>TABLE>

ANEXO II - /BILAG II - /ANHANG II - /ΠΑΡΑΡΤΗΜΑ II - /ANNEX II - /ANNEXE II - /ALLEGATO II - /BIJLAGE II - /ANEXO II - /LIITE II - /BILAGA II -

>TABLE>
III

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 72

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the President should categorically

disavow any intention of issuing a pardon to James or Susan McDougal

or to Jim Guy Tucker.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 27, 1996

Mr. SHELBY (for himself, Mr. BOND, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr.

FAIRCLOTH, Mr. KYL, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. SANTORUM, Mrs. FRAHM, Mr.

THURMOND, Mr. HELMS, and Mr. BENNETT) submitted the following

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that the President

should categorically disavow any intention of issuing a

pardon to James or Susan McDougal or to Jim Guy

Tucker.

Whereas it is incumbent upon the Congress to oppose any action that would have the effect of undermining the rule

of law or the faith of the American people in our jury

system;

Whereas on May 28, 1996, former business partners of the

President were convicted of a total of 24 felony counts

by a jury of 12 Arkansas residents;
2

•SCON 72 IS

Whereas Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker have been

sentenced for their crimes by a Federal district judge in

Little Rock, Arkansas, and their codefendant James

McDougal is awaiting sentencing by the same judge;

Whereas on September 4, 1996, Susan McDougal was held

in contempt of court for refusing to answer questions before a Federal grand jury relating to (1) the knowledge

of the President with respect to the fraudulent transactions for which she was convicted, and (2) the truthfulness of the testimony of the President at her trial;

Whereas in a televised interview broadcast on September 23,

1996, the President stated that any request for a Presidential pardon made by James or Susan McDougal or

Jim Guy Tucker would be reviewed in the normal course,

thereby leaving open the possibility that one or more pardons might indeed be issued at some later date;

Whereas any Presidential pardon of James or Susan

McDougal or Jim Guy Tucker would seriously undermine

the confidence of the American people in our criminal

justice system, by essentially nullifying felony convictions

of friends and associates of the President rendered by a

jury of 12 Arkansas residents on charges initially

brought by a grand jury comprised of 23 other Arkansans; and

Whereas the September 23, 1996, remarks by the President

could be construed by his recently convicted friends and

associates as offering them an inducement to refuse to

testify honestly and openly about matters under investigation by Federal law enforcement authorities: Now,

therefore, be it
3

•SCON 72 IS

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the

3 President should categorically disavow any intention of is4 suing a Presidential pardon to James or Susan McDougal

5 or Jim Guy Tucker, and thereby affirm the principle that,

6 in the system of justice in the United States, no person

7 is above the law.

Æ
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-50229

Summary Calendar

 

MARY ELIZABETH HUMPHREY, As Next Friend of

Clint Colby Stoll, A Minor; ANTHONY ALEXANDER

STOLL, Individually and as Representative of

the Estate of Clint Stoll, Deceased; and MYRNA

JO STOLL, Individually and as Representative 

of the Estate of Clint Stoll, Deceased,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

versus

CITY OF AUSTIN et al.,

Defendants,

TRAVIS COUNTY TEXAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. A-95-CV-53

- - - - - - - - - -

December 12, 1997

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-appellant Travis County, Texas appeals the district

court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment or, in the
2

alternative, to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint, which asserted

civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and supplemental statelaw tort claims. Travis County’s motion was based in part on

qualified immunity and other immunity doctrines. 

The denial of summary judgment generally is not an appealable

order. Aldy v. Valmet Paper Mach., 74 F.3d 72, 75 (5th Cir. 1996),

cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 68 (1997). This court lacks appellate

jurisdiction over the district court’s denial of Travis County’s

motion for summary judgment because the district court made no

abstract legal conclusions as to the County’s state-law immunity

defenses and based the denial of summary-judgment on a

determination that there remained many genuine issues of material

fact. See Behrens v. Pelletier, 116 S. Ct. 834, 841-42 (1996).

The appeal is DISMISSED for want of appellate jurisdiction. See

Cantu v. Rocha, 77 F.3d 795, 804 (5th Cir. 1996).

Insofar as the plaintiffs move to dismiss the appeal, that

motion is GRANTED.

The plaintiffs’ motion for the imposition of sanctions alleges

that this is appeal is frivolous and seeks costs and damages based

on FED. R. APP. P. 38. Defendant has made a non-frivolous, though

ultimately unsuccessful, argument that this court had appellate

jurisdiction under the “collateral order doctrine.” Therefore, the

motion for sanctions is DENIED. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR SANCTIONS DENIED.
Dear Secretary Foxx, 

May 13,2015 

The Honorable Anthony Foxx 

Secretary of Transportation 

United States Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Re: Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0082 

As someone whose previous employment was in the architectural field, I enjoyed traveling 

internationally to countries like Germany, Hungary, and other areas in Eastern Europe to see 

the-historic-buildings and to visit museums. It seems that many people from other parts of the 

world have the same opinion of the United States, and want to travel here to visit the different 

historical and cultural sites. Our country benefits greatly from the economic boost that 

international tourism provides, but now the three major U.S. airlines (American, Delta and 

United) are asking the government for an unfair advantage that will limit international travel 

options and hurt our economy. 

These three airlines are asking that the federal government renegotiate the Open Skies 

agreements we have with many international carriers originating in regions of Asia and the 

Middle East. This would essentially put a stranglehold on international air travel to and from the 

United States. The U.S. airlines do not want to compete with foreign air carriers because 

travelers say these other airplanes are nicer and the tickets cost less. My husband still travels 

abroad annually, and competition between airlines leads to better service and lower prices for 

him and for other travelers. If the government steps in and limits the competition that American, 

Delta, and United are facing, travelers will be forced to take more expensive international flights 

through these airlines or not travel at all. 

If the Open Skies agreements are significantly altered it will put a damper on international 

tourism to the United States. Since it seems like everyone across the globe wants to visit our 

country, I think that all of the airlines should get organized on this matter and do what they need 

to do to help themselves compete. Please take action to secure our international travel options 

- for years to come by protecting the free trade of air--travel. 

Sincerely, 

s 10-150519-054 

Profira Rauta 

6205 Frankford Avenue 

Philadelphia, PA 19135 
Profira Rauta 

6205 Frankford Avenue 

·Philadelphia, PA 19135 

s 1 0-150519-054 

rP HI L.AJCtEJLF!H~. lP.~ lL9::t 

The Honorable Anthony Foxx 

Secretary of Transportation 

United States Department of Transportation 

ATTN: Docket Center 

Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0082 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590
#### Levi Rivera MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-2304

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 15, 2017

Decided: June 22, 2017

Japheth N. Matemu, MATEMU LAW OFFICE P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Cindy S. Fer-rier, Assistant Director, Brendan P. Hogan, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Levi Rivera Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen and rescind his in absen-tia removal order. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s order and find no abuse of discretion. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b) (2016). We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re Rivera Martinez*(B.I.A. Oct. 17, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice HARDY, a/k/a Reece, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-7011

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2017

Decided: May 25, 2017

Maurice Hardy, Appellant Pro Se. Christine Marie Celeste, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Peter Jeffrey Martinez, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Maurice Hardy appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. *See United States v. May,*855 F.3d 271, 275-77 (4th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *United States v. Hardy,*No. 1:11-cr-00358-ELH-2 (D. Md. July 12, 2016 & July 28, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
The DJI A2 Autopilot manual is too large for upload to regulations.gov. Therefore, if interested,

please follow the link below to the assembly and operating manual for the sUAS.

https://www.dji.com/product/a2/download