alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Court of Appeals **First District of Texas**

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01

- 14

- 00987

- CV

Karen Silvio

v . Jo Lynn Boggan

NO. 370,090 IN THE PROBATE COURT NO 2 OF HARRIS C OUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY FILING $195.00 12/11/2014 NOT PAID ANT



### T he costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are $195.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine , Clerk o f the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby cert ify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, this June 1 2 , 2015

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET OF CNL INCOME FUND III LTD. AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND ITS STATEMENT OF
INCOME FOR THE NINE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO THE FORM 10-Q OF CNL INCOME FUND III LTD. FOR THE NINE MONTHS
ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,666,473<F2>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,527
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,478
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      13,110,045
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,701,262
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,496,348
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  15,673,792
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,496,348
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,339,173
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  441,103
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,303,520
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,303,520
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,303,520
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>DUE TO THE NATURE OF ITS INDUSTRY, CNL INCOME FUND III, LTD. HAS AN
UNCLASSIFIED BALANCE SHEET; THEREFORE, NO VALUES ARE SHOWN ABOVE FOR CURRENT
ASSETS AND CURRENT LIABILITIES.

<F2>INCLUDES $1,109,663 IN RESTRICTED CASH.
</FN>


</TABLE>
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

August 11, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130068 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

KELLY AND RONALD HUNTSMAN, et al, Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Justices 

v SC: 130068 

 COA: 262216 

Roscommon CC: 04-724629-CZ 

GERRISH TOWNSHIP, et al,

Defendants, 

and 

PHILIP WILL, et al,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 6, 2005 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral 

argument on whether to grant the application or take other peremptory action. MCR 

7.302(G)(1). The parties may file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this 

order, but they should avoid submitting a mere restatement of the arguments made in 

their application papers. 

p0809 

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. 

August 11, 2006 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         6816956
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                   57471500
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         9484274
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           9562841
<LOANS>                                      140473379
<ALLOWANCE>                                    1921942
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               225104655
<DEPOSITS>                                   176528779
<SHORT-TERM>                                  21632000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            2468770
<LONG-TERM>                                    6790583
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       4002154
<OTHER-SE>                                    13682369
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               225104655
<INTEREST-LOAN>                               10008676
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              2358330
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 54722
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                              12421728
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             4970118
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             5893071
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          6528657
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   630000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               15423
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                5341729
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2032553
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     2032553
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1323948
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.16
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.46
<LOANS-NON>                                    3828585
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                823361
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               1767483
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   571558
<RECOVERIES>                                     96017
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              1921942
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        1921942
        

</TABLE>
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-18-00252-CR 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

DANIEL CABRAL-TAPIA, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the County Court 

Hale County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 2017C-200, Honorable Bill Coleman, Presiding 

 

October 11, 2018 

 

ABATEMENT AND REMAND 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PARKER, JJ. 

Pending before this court is the State’s motion to abate the appeal and remand the 

cause to the trial court to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law. The record 

reflects that the trial court granted appellee Daniel Cabral-Tapia’s motion to suppress the 

horizontal gaze nystagmus test and that the State timely filed a request for findings of fact 

and conclusions of law. However, none were filed. In State v. Cullen, 195 S.W.3d 696,

699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006), the Court of Criminal Appeals held that, “[u]pon the request 

of the losing party on a motion to suppress evidence, the trial court shall state its essential 
2

findings.” There, the Court explained that the trial court’s refusal to state its findings and 

conclusions prevented the court of appeals from a meaningful review of the decision to 

grant or deny the motion to suppress. Id. at 698.

Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the trial court. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 44.4. Upon remand, the trial court shall execute findings of fact and 

conclusions of law as required by State v. Cullen, supra. So too shall it include its findings

and conclusions in a supplemental clerk’s record and cause that record to be filed with 

this court. Because we must “give precedence in [our] docket to an appeal filed” by the 

State from an order granting a motion to suppress evidence, Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.

art. 44.01(a)(5), (f) (West 2018), we set October 24, 2018, as the deadline by which the 

findings and conclusions must be filed with this court. Should further time be needed to 

perform these tasks, then same must be requested before October 24, 2018. 

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 41 (Monday, March 3, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 9410]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5189]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-72; RM-9017]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Mullins and Briarcliffe Acres, SC

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by 
Atlantic Broadcasting Co., Inc., proposing the reallotment of Channel 
296C2 from Mullins to Briarcliffe Acres, South Carolina, and the 
modification of Station WWSK(FM)'s license accordingly. Channel 296C2 
can be allotted to Briarcliffe Acres in compliance with the 
Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site 
restriction of 25.7 kilometers (16 miles) northwest at petitioner's 
presently authorized site. The coordinates for Channel 296C2 at 
Briarcliffe Acres are North Latitude 33-56-14 and West Longitude 78-57-
53.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 14, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before April 29, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Gary S. 
Smithwick, Esq., Smithwick & Belendiuk, P.C., 1990 M Street, NW., Suite 
510, Washington, DC 20036 (Counsel for Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-72, adopted February 
14, 1997, and released February 21, 1997. The full text of this 
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M 
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may 
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 
140, Washington, DC 20037.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-5189 Filed 2-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
### Request for Information Jame s D Sanders (FAA-2015-3720) 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. Sanders:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is miss ing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 3720). This information is necessary for the Fe deral Aviation Administrati on (FAA) to process your p etition.

 Describe the aircraft makes, models, and types (i.e., fixed

- wing, rotorcraft, lighter

- than

- air) for the proposed UAS operation. The descriptions shoul d include the maximum weight (incl uding payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manuals.

Please submit the additional information (non- proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, pl ease also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations .gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. I f you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information de scribed above by November 18, 2015. If we do not receive the in formation, we will close the doc ket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999 .

FAA Office of Rulemaking Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 3:18 PM To: j sanders1974@gmail.com
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Daniel CORREA-CAMBRON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-10369 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed March 14, 2018

James. Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Jerry Van Beard, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Eric Daniel Correa-Cambron appeals the 46-month within-guidelines sentence and three-year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2). He argues that his sentence violates due process because it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed by § 1326(a). He concedes that the issue of whether his eligibility for a sentencing enhancement under § 1326(b) *462must be alleged in the. indictment and proved to a jury is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). However, he seeks to preserve the issue for possible Supreme Court review because, he argues, subsequent Supreme Court decisions indicate that the Court may reconsider this issue.

The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, alternatively, an extension of time to file a brief. Summary affirmance is appropriate when, among other instances, “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” *Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,*406 F.2d 1158, 1162-63 (5th Cir. 1969). In *Almendarez-Torres,*the Supreme Court held that, for purposes of a statutory sentencing enhancement, a prior conviction is not a fact that must be alleged in an indictment or found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. 523 U.S. at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. This court has held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. Wallace,*759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); *United States v. Pineda-Arrellano,*492 F.3d 624, 625-26 (5th Cir. 2007). Thus, Correa-Cambron’s argument is foreclosed.

In light of the foregoing, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment is AFFIRMED. The Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

*

 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,
# C_2022424EN.01001602.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 424/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 424/16

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de Prud’hommes d’Agen (France) lodged on 21 April 2022 — KH v Keolis Agen SARL

(Case C-272/22)

(2022/C 424/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil de Prud’hommes d’Agen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: KH

Defendant: Keolis Agen SARL

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) be interpreted as being directly applicable in relations between a private transport operator, with a single public service delegation, and its employees, in the light, in particular, of the liberalisation of the rail passenger transport sector? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1) be interpreted as being directly applicable in relations between a private transport operator, with a single public service delegation, and its employees, in the light, in particular, of the liberalisation of the rail passenger transport sector?

| 2. | What is a reasonable carry-over period in respect of the acquired entitlement to four weeks’ paid annual leave within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88, in so far as the time during which annual leave may be accrued is one year? |
| --- | --- |

2.

What is a reasonable carry-over period in respect of the acquired entitlement to four weeks’ paid annual leave within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88, in so far as the time during which annual leave may be accrued is one year?

| 3. | Is the application of an unlimited carry-over period in the absence of a provision of national law, a regulation or convention governing that period contrary to Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is the application of an unlimited carry-over period in the absence of a provision of national law, a regulation or convention governing that period contrary to Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88?

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.

---
No. 11-10532.

#### Hudgins *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Court of Appeals 

First District of Texas 

BILL OF COSTS

No. 01-14-00987-CV

Karen Silvio 

v.

Jo Lynn Boggan

NO. 370,090 IN THE PROBATE COURT NO 2 OF HARRIS COUNTY

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID/DUE STATUS PAID BY

FILING $195.00 12/11/2014 NOT PAID ANT

The costs incurred on appeal to the First Court of Appeals Houston, Texas are 

$195.00.

Court costs in this case have been taxed in this Court’s judgment

I, Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, do hereby 

certify that this is a true statement of the costs of appeal in this case.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my 

hand and the seal of the Court of Appeals for the 

First District of Texas, this June 12, 2015.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF INCOME AND THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              FEB-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                           8,239
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,006
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,403
<INVENTORY>                                    181,923
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               220,568
<PP&E>                                          53,744
<DEPRECIATION>                                  28,915
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 276,342
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           82,459
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                     142,486
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   276,342
<SALES>                                        191,857
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               191,857
<CGS>                                          142,881
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  142,881
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,129<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   275
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 886
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (3,531)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       295
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (3,826)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (3,826)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.14)
<FN>
<F1>OTHER EXPENSES CONSISTS OF ALL OPERATING COSTS AND EXCLUDES INTEREST
NON-OPERATING INCOME AND INCOME EXPESES.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8833 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to extend by one year certain 

port of entry donation authority, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 2, 2020 

Mr. CUELLAR (for himself, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. HURD of Texas, Mr. GONZALEZ

of Texas, and Ms. TORRES SMALL of New Mexico) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, 

and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by 

the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to extend 

by one year certain port of entry donation authority, 

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, 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8833 IH

1 SECTION 1. ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PORT OF 

2 ENTRY DONATION AUTHORITY. 

3 Subparagraph (A) of section 482(b)(4) of the Home4 land Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 301a(b)(4)) is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘4’’ and inserting ‘‘5’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS