alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GREGORIO ARRIAGA,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-08-00097-CR

Appeal from

 Criminal District Court No. 1

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 20070D02376)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Gregorio Arriaga appeals his conviction for possession of more than 50 but less than 2,000

pounds of marihuana. Appellant entered a plea of guilty before a jury. The jury found Appellant

guilty and assessed punishment at imprisonment for a term of eight years. We affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which she has concluded that the

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, 87 S.Ct. 1396, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 18 L.Ed.2d

1377, 87 S.Ct. 2094 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why,

in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807

(Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Jackson v. State,

485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969).

A copy of counsel’s brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his

right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

The record reflects that the trial court admonished Appellant of the consequences of his guilty

plea pursuant to Article 26.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Based upon the record
before us, the guilty plea appears to have been freely and voluntarily made by Appellant. We have

carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and agree that the appeal is wholly frivolous and

without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. The

judgment is affirmed.

July 15, 2009 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Carr, JJ.

Carr, J., not participating

(Do Not Publish)
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 41

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a postage stamp should be issued

to honor law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 6, 1997

Mr. STUPAK (for himself, Mr. RAMSTAD, Mrs. THURMAN, Mr. GREEN, Mr.

STUMP, Mr. CUNNINGHAM, Mr. COOK, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. ACKERMAN,

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. HOLDEN, Mrs. MALONEY of New

York, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. COYNE, Mr. EVANS, Mr. FILNER, Mr. FROST,

Ms. MOLINARI, Mr. GORDON, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr.

DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. FOLEY, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. ENSIGN,

Mr. ROGAN, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. HERGER, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. OWENS, Mr.

STARK, Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin, Mr. VENTO, Mr. CRAMER, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. LOFGREN, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. GOODE, Mr. MANTON, Mr. DEUTSCH, Mr. BALDACCI, Mr. TALENT, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr.

BISHOP, Mr. CANADY of Florida, Mr. QUINN, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, Mr.

PITTS, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. RUSH, Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mr. BEREUTER, Ms. ESHOO, Mr. STRICKLAND, Ms. FURSE, Mr. BROWN of

Ohio, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. DEGETTE, Ms. RIVERS, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. KILDEE,

Ms. KILPATRICK, Mr. BARCIA, and Mr. BONIOR) submitted the following

concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a postage stamp

should be issued to honor law enforcement officers killed

in the line of duty.

Whereas more than 14,000 law enforcement officers lost their

lives in service to American communities since records

were started in 1794;
2

•HCON 41 IH

Whereas 174 law enforcement officers throughout the United

States lost their lives in service to American communities

in 1995;

Whereas every other day one law enforcement officer is killed

while serving an American community;

Whereas more than 66,000 law enforcement officers are assaulted each year while serving American communities

and 24,000 are injured during such assaults;

Whereas 600,000 law enforcement officers endanger their

lives each day to serve and protect American communities;

Whereas America’s law enforcement officers represent the

highly valued qualities of strength, courage, and valor;

and

Whereas issuing a postage stamp to honor the sacrifices of

America’s law enforcement officers is proper and fitting:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

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

3 (1) a postage stamp should be issued to honor

4 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty;

5 and

6 (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee of

7 the United States Postal Service should recommend

8 to the Postmaster General that such a postage

9 stamp be issued.

Æ
No. 11-1259.

#### Hartsel et al., Individually, Derivatively, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated *v.*Vanguard Group, Inc., et al.

Sup. Ct. Del. Certiorari denied.

Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         868,498
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,503,406
<ALLOWANCES>                                   412,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,901,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            24,873,463
<PP&E>                                      62,601,075
<DEPRECIATION>                              26,309,475
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              70,244,118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       16,654,395
<BONDS>                                     34,862,808
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        70,047
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,656,868
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                70,244,118
<SALES>                                     69,728,498
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            69,885,967
<CGS>                                       53,508,548
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               65,239,092
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,205,477
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,441,398
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,353,507
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,087,891
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,087,891
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

May 27, 2009 

0518 

Order 

 

May 27, 2009 

138289 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 138289 

 COA: 278467 

Muskegon CC: 02-047580-FC 

RICARDO BLACKSHIRE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 15, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
# C_2023094EN.01001702.xml

| 13.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 94/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 25 November 2022 — IJ and PO GesbR, IJ v Agrarmarkt Austria

(Case C-731/22)

(2023/C 94/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: IJ and PO GesbR, IJ

Defendant Authority: Agrarmarkt Austria

Question referred

Is Article 4(1), (b) and (c), read in conjunction with Article 33(1) of Regulation 1307/2013 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an area is to be regarded as being managed by, and at the disposal of, the farmer if, although that area is owned by the farmer and the farmer also carries out the initial soil cultivation and crop cultivation, as well as the ongoing irrigation of the crop cultures, the area is divided into parcels of different sizes and handed over — from the beginning of the season in April/early May until the end of the season in October — to various users for maintenance and harvesting in consideration for a fixed fee, but without the farmer being entitled to a direct share in the success of the harvest?

---

(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 608).

---
Dallas County 

Public Defender’s Office

 133 N. Riverfront Blvd., 9th Floor, LB 2  Dallas, Texas 75207-4313  Phone: (214) 653-3550  Fax: (214) 653-3539 

January 31, 2018 

Lisa Matz, Clerk 

Court of Appeals, 5th District 

600 Commerce Street, Suite 200 

Dallas, Texas 75202

RE: Undre Jones v. State of Texas

 Trial Court No.: F14-52314-V 

 Appellate Court No.: 05-15-01012-CR 

 Certification of Compliance with TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 

 

Dear Ms. Matz: 

Pursuant to Rule 48.4, of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, I certify that on July 31, 

2017, I sent to Mr. Jones a copy of this Court’s opinion and judgment in the above-entitled and 

numbered cause along with notification of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review 

under Rule 68. This notification was sent certified mail, return receipt requested, to Mr. Jones at his 

last known address. This notification was returned as undeliverable. I have attached a copy of the 

front of the returned envelope showing that it was undeliverable. 

On September 11, 2017, I re-sent the opinion and judgment, the notification of his right to 

file a pro se petition for discretionary review under Rule 68, and a copy of the motion for extension 

to file a petition for discretionary review I filed in the Court of Criminal Appeals on September 7, 

2017, to Mr. Jones by regular mail. Please include this letter in the official papers in this cause. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 

Respectfully, 

/s/ Julie Woods 

Julie Woods 

Assistant Public Defender 

Attachment

cc: Dallas County Criminal District Attorney’s Office, Appellate Section 

ACCEPTED

05-15-01012-CR

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

1/31/2018 1:57 PM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 1/31/2018 1:57:36 PM LISA MATZ Clerk
Exhibit 4.3SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE     SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE, dated as of August 2, 2004 (this “SupplementalIndenture”), by and between ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST (formerly known as Property Trustof America and as Archstone Communities Trust), a real estate investment trust organized under thelaws of the State of Maryland having its principal office at 9200 E. Panorama Circle, Suite 400,Englewood, Colorado 80112 (hereinafter sometimes called the “Company”), and U.S. BANKNATIONAL ASSOCIATION (as successor in interest to State Street Bank and Trust Company), having acorporate trust office at Corporate Trust Services, 100 Wall Street, Suite 1600, New York, New York10005, as successor Trustee under the Base Indenture (defined below) (the “Trustee”).RECITALS OF THE COMPANY     The Company and the Trustee have heretofore entered into an Indenture dated as of February 1,1994, as amended by a First Supplemental Indenture dated as of February 2, 1994 (as so supplementedhereinafter called the “Base Indenture”) between the Company and the Trustee, providing forthe issuance by the Company from time to time of its senior debt securities evidencing itsunsecured and unsubordinated indebtedness (the “Securities”).     Section 301 of the Base Indenture provides for various matters with respect to any series ofSecurities issued under the Base Indenture to be established in an indenture supplemental to theBase Indenture.     Section 901(7) of the Base Indenture provides for the Company and the Trustee to enter into anindenture supplemental to the Base Indenture to establish the form of or terms of Securities of anyseries as provided by Sections 201 and 301 of the Base Indenture.     The Board of Trustees of Archstone-Smith Trust, the sole trustee of the Company, has dulyadopted resolutions authorizing the Company to execute and deliver this Supplemental Indenture andauthorized the issuance of the Notes.     All things necessary to make the Indenture, as hereby modified, a valid agreement of theCompany, in accordance with its terms, have been done.     NOW, THEREFORE, THIS SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE WITNESSETH:     For and in consideration of the premises and of the covenants contained herein and in theIndenture, and the purchase of Securities provided for herein by the Holders thereof, the Companyand the Trustee covenant and agree, for the equal and proportionate benefit of all Holders ofNotes, as follows:ARTICLE ONE
No. 11-10183.

#### Leonard *v.*Nevada.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6006]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Center for Research Resources; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
National Center for Research Resources Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) 
meeting:

    Name of SEP: K-12.
    Date: June 17-18, 1997.
    Time: 8:00 a.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn Bethesda, Montgomery Room, 8120 Wisconsin 
Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 652-2000.
    Contact Person: Dr. Jill Carrington, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6705 Rocklege Drive, MSC 7965, Room 6018, Bethesda, 
MD 20892-7965 (301) 435-0811.
    Purpose/Agenda: To evaluate and review grant applications.
    The meeting will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.339, Research 
Centers in Minority Institutions, National Institutes of Health, 
HHS.)

    Dated: March 5, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-6006 Filed 3-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
No. 11-10615.

#### Bell *v.*Keffer, Warden.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
1 The HONORABLE RICHARD H. KYLE, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the HONORABLE FRANKLIN L. NOEL, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-2758

___________ Jerry William Weber, * * Appellant, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Minnesota. * Frank W. Wood, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee, *

___________ Submitted: August 1, 2000 Filed: August 3, 2000

___________ Before BEAM, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Jerry William Weber, a Minnesota inmate, appeals the district court’s 1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 retaliatory-transfer action. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude summary judgment was properly granted, for the reasons stated by the district court. We also conclude the district court did not-2-

abuse its discretion in denying Weber’s various discovery motions. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B. Accordingly, we affirm. A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
No. 11-10257.

#### Boston *v.*Nevada.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 4.1


 

	
	AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY, LLC 





	
	[Reverse Side of Stock Certificate]
The Corporation will furnish to any stockholder, upon request and without charge, a full statement of the designations,
relative rights, preferences and limitations of the shares of each class and series authorized to be issued, so far as the same have been
determined, and of the authority, if any, of the Board to divide the shares into classes or series and to determine and change the
relative rights, preferences and limitations of any class or series. Such request may be made to the Secretary of the Corporation or to
the Transfer Agent named on this certificate.
The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they
were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:
TEN COM  -  as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT - ____ Custodian ______
           (Cust)            (Minor)
TEN ENT   -  as tenant by the entireties
JT TEN -  as joint tenants with right of
survivorship and not as tenants in
common
under Uniform Gifts to Minors Act
___________________________
(State)
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
For value received, _____________________________ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE
____________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________ Shares of the Common Stock represented
by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Attorney, to transfer the said stock registered on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the
premises.
Dated ____________________   ___________________________________________
SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED: ___________________________________________
Notice: The signature(s) to this assignment must correspond
with the name(s) as written upon the face of the certificate in
every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any
change whatever.
_______________________________________________
THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN
ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS,
STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND
CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN APPROVED
SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM),
PURSUANT TO RULE 17Ad-15 UNDER THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED.
No. 11-10554.

#### Presley *v.*Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sup. Ct. Miss. Certiorari denied.
#### Coleco Tayloe BEST, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OF SOUTHERN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7161

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: February 22, 2018

Decided: March 12, 2018

Coleco Tayloe Best, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.

Before MOTZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Coleco Tayloe Best 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 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 Best 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*
#### Richard STERBA, et ux., petitioners, v. PNC BANK.

No. 17-423.

Jan. 22, 2018.

The Solicitor General is invited t'o file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.

Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
No. 11-1444.

No. 11-1445.

#### Hussein *v.*Nevada System of Higher Education ET AL.; and Dickerson *v.*Nevada System of Higher Education et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 458 Fed. Appx. 659.