alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-21-00012-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

DYLAN NATHAN HAGERMAN, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court at Law

of Comal County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

Order Per Curiam

Before the Court is appellant's pro se motion for access to the appellate record.

On August 26, 2021, appellant's counsel filed an Anders brief, and appellant has been 

unable to examine the record in order to file a pro se brief. 

Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion and it is hereby ORDERED that the 

trial court ensure that appellant has the opportunity to fully examine the appellate record 
2

on or before fifteen (15) days from the date this order issues. It is FURTHER ORDERED

the trial court notify this Court as to the date upon which the appellate record was made 

available to appellant. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

Furthermore, Appellant shall have thirty (30) days from the day the appellate

record is first made available to him to file his pro se brief with this Court. The State shall 

have twenty days thereafter to file its response, if any.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

27th day of September, 2021.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1271
LORENZO TRONI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PETER HANLON; LESLIE HANLON, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Chief District Judge. (CA-96-1634-A) Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 27, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenzo Troni, Appellant Pro Se. Colin Frazier Bell, Philippe M. Salo mon, WILLKIE, FARR & GALLAGHER, New York, New York, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for default judgment. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We deny Appellant's motion for sanctions, grant Appellee's motion to dismiss the case because the appeal is interlocutory, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### David Wayne MIXON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director VDOC, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7078

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 22, 2017

David Wayne Mixon, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Hyman Katz, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Wayne Mixon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner sat*145isfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mixon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 4.10


YEAR 2001 PERFORMANCE CONTRACT WITH PRESIDENT OF PETROCHINA COMPANY LIMITED

<TABLE>
<S>                                               <C>                                        <C>
Offeree: Name: HUANG, Yan                         Offeror: Name: MA, Fucai                   Term of the Contract: January 1, 2001
                                                                                             to December 31, 2001
Title:   President of PetroChina Company          Title:   Chairman of the Board
         Limited ("PetroChina")                            of Directors of PetroChina        Date of Execution: January, 2001
</TABLE>


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                                  ACTUAL
INDICES                 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICES (KPI)      WEIGHT        MEASUREMENT               TARGET       PERFORMANCE
-------                 -----------------------------      ------        -----------               ------       -----------
<S>                     <C>                                <C>           <C>                       <C>          <C>
Profits Indices         Rate of return of the invested     40%           %                          12.86
                        capital of PetroChina (ROIC)

                        Net income of PetroChina (NI)      20%           In million RMB            41,470

                        Free cash flow of PetroChina
                        (FCF)                              20%           In million RMB             9,950

Operating Indices       Sales revenue per                  10%           In thousand                  544
                        capita                                           RMB/person

                        Rate of reserves                   10%           %                            126
                        replacement
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<S>                     <C>                          <C>                                    <C>
Indices to Be                                        Accidents involving                    Comprehensive
Put under Control       Safety                       death < or = 0.05 persons/             performance
                                                     million man-hours;                     expressed in marks
                                                                                            to be reduced by 10
                                                     accidents involving                    marks if exceeding
                                                     economic loss exceeding                target of the index
                                                     RMB 10 million = 0.                    put under control.
</TABLE>

Signature of Offeree:      s/Huang Yan      Signature of Offeror:    s/Ma Fucai
                         ---------------                            ------------
1 

# Memo

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010 From: Joseph McDonald, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD CC: Ed Nam, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD Date: Wednesday, August 8, 2012 Re: July 10, 2012 telephone call with Ford Motor Company
Call participant from EPA: Joseph McDonald Call participants from Ford: Alyss Werthman and members of Ford HEV engineering development staff Call notes: Ford discussed their methods for measuring nominal voltage and determining battery state of charge. Ford provided information regardi ng obtaining battery pack open-circuit voltage measurements via control area network data acquisiti on to allow calculation of the average battery nominal voltage over the light-duty UDDS.
Exhibit 32.2








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Amendment No.3 to the annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Report”) by China Growth Corporation (the “Company”), I, Tin Nang (Chris) Lui, Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:





1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and





2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








China Growth CorporationDate: August 17, 2011
By:
/s/ Tin Nang (Chris) LuiTin Nang (Chris) LuiChief Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting Officer





This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET OF AVTEL COMMUNICATIONS,  INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF
SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND THE RELATED  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENTS  OF OPERATIONS  AND
CASH FLOWS FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                             <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                          5188
<SECURITIES>                       0 
<RECEIVABLES>                   7853
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               17634
<PP&E>                          1316
<DEPRECIATION>                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 19085
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          10449
<BONDS>                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<COMMON>                          92
<OTHER-SE>                      7965
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   19085
<SALES>                        39244
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               39244
<CGS>                          27304
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  27304
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               12138
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 9
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   12
<INCOME-TAX>                      (5)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                0
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       7
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                  (0.01)
        


</TABLE>
# EUR-Lex - 32001R1423 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 32001R1423

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1423/2001 of 12 July 2001 determining to what extent applications for the right to import for bulls, cows and heifers of certain Alpine and mountain breeds pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 can be met **

*
Official Journal L 191 , 13/07/2001 P. 0032 - 0032 *

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1423/2001

of 12 July 2001

determining to what extent applications for the right to import for bulls, cows and heifers of certain Alpine and mountain breeds pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 can be met

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 of 26 May 1999 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for imports of bulls, cows and heifers other than for slaughter, of certain Alpine and mountain breeds, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1012/98 and amending Regulation (EC) No 1143/98(1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1096/2001(2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 provides for the quantities reserved for traditional importers under the two tariff quotas to be allocated in proportion to their imports during the period 1 July 1997 to 30 June 2000.

(2) Allocation of the quantities available to operators covered by Article 2(3) of that Regulation under the two tariff quotas is to be in proportion to the quantities applied for. Since the quantities applied for exceed those available, a fixed percentage reduction should be set,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1. Every application for the right to import lodged in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 under serial number 09.0001 shall be granted to the following extent:

(a) 18,9260 % of the quantities imported within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999;

(b) 2,4937 % of the quantities applied for within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999.

2. Every application for the right to import lodged in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999 under serial number 09.0003 shall be granted to the following extent:

(a) 19,6067 % of the quantities imported within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999;

(b) 2,5445 % of the quantities applied for within the meaning of Article 2(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1081/1999.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 13 July 2001.

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

Done at Brussels, 12 July 2001.

For the Commission

Franz Fischler

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 131, 27.5.1999, p. 15.

(2) OJ L 150, 6.6.2001, p. 33.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**CERTIFICATIONI, Robert L. Hargrave, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2008,of Stewart & Stevenson LLC;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the period presentedin this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:April 29, 2008         By:   /s/ ROBERT L. HARGRAVE    **Robert L. Hargrave**    **Chief Executive Officer**
#### Clark R. MCKNIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Frank BISHOP; the Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-7131

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 22, 2017

*152Clark R. McKnight, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Clark R. McKnight seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McKnight has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

*DISMISSED*
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 989 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 989

  To limit funding of an executive order that would prohibit Federal 
 contractors from hiring permanent replacements for lawfully striking 
                   employees, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                June 29 (legislative day, June 19), 1995

  Mrs. Kassebaum (for herself, Mr. Coats, Mr. Gorton, and Mr. Hatch) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                 Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To limit funding of an executive order that would prohibit Federal 
 contractors from hiring permanent replacements for lawfully striking 
                   employees, and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness in Federal Contracting Act 
of 1995''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
            (1) it is the role of Congress, as the representative body 
        of the people, to decide the policy of the United States with 
        respect to relations between management and labor; and
            (2) the executive branch should not use the Federal 
        procurement process to initiate major changes in the labor-
        management relations of the United States.
    (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the 
Congress decides important labor-management relations policy by 
prohibiting the executive branch from spending any appropriated funds 
for the purpose of implementing an executive order that would debar or 
in any way limit the right of Federal contractors under common law to 
use permanent replacements for lawfully striking employees.

SEC. 3. LIMIT ON APPROPRIATED FUNDS.

    None of the funds made available under any appropriations Act for 
fiscal year 1995 may be used to issue, implement, administer, or 
enforce any executive order, or other rule, regulation, or order, that 
limits, restricts, or otherwise affects the ability of any existing or 
potential Federal contractor, subcontractor, or vendor to hire 
permanent replacements for lawfully striking employees.
                                 <all>
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 1128

PAUL CHARLES BIRD, SR. , Debtor

- Appellant ,

v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC; BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST , Defendants

- Appellees,
and
REBECCA ANNE HERR , Trustee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. George L. Russell, III , District Judge. ( 1:21

- cv - 02224

- GLR )

Submitted : August 18, 2022 Decided: August 22, 2022

Before WYNN , THACKER , and HEYTENS , Circuit Judge s
.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1128 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/22/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 Paul Charles Bird, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Harvey Hillman, SAMUEL I. WHITE PC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precede nt in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-1128 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/22/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM:
Paul Charles Bird , Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as interlocutory his appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order denying his challenges to the creditor’s standing to file a motion for relief from the automatic stay and to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Bird v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC , No. 1 : 2 1

- cv - 0 2224

- GLR (D. Md

. Jan. 11, 2022 ). We dispense with oral

argum ent because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRM ED USCA4 Appeal: 22-1128 Doc: 17 Filed: 08/22/2022 Pg: 3 of 3