alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00196-CR

MICHAEL SCOTT BAUGHMAN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court

Cass County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-F-00133

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Michael Scott Baughman attempts to appeal from a judgment adjudicating him guilty of 

sexual assault of a child and sentencing him to eleven years’ confinement. Baughman’s sentence 

was imposed July 3, 2013. His motion for new trial was filed August 5, 2013, and his notice of 

appeal was filed September 5, 2013. The issue before us is whether Baughman timely filed his 

notice of appeal. We conclude that he did not and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

A timely-filed notice of appeal is necessary to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Olivo v. State, 

918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Rule 26.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure prescribes the time period in which a notice of appeal must be filed to perfect an appeal in 

a criminal case. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). A criminal defendant’s notice of appeal is timely if 

filed within thirty days after the date sentence is imposed or suspended or within ninety days after 

sentencing if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial. Id.; Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522.

In this case, Baughman’s motion for new trial was filed thirty-four days after the date 

sentence was imposed, making it untimely. As a result, Baughman did not trigger the ninety-day 

filing period that accompanies a timely-filed motion for new trial, and his notice of appeal was due 

within thirty days of the date sentence was imposed. Since Baughman’s notice of appeal was not 

filed within this thirty-day window, it was untimely, and we are without jurisdiction to consider the 

appeal.
3

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: November 13, 2013.

Date Decided: November 14, 2013

Do Not Publish
#### State v. Baatrup

107,822

107,823

08/23/13

Denied

Unpublished
First Amendment to Equity Agreement



 
Exhibit 10.4

 
FIRST AMENDMENT TO EQUITY AGREEMENT 
 
This First Amendment to Equity Agreement is dated as of this 20th day of
March, 2002 and is hereby made to the Equity Agreement dated as of the 22nd day of August, 2001, by and between
Varitek Industries, Inc. and BACO International, Inc. (the “Agreement”), in accordance with Clause 7.8 of the Agreement. 
 
The following First Amendment to the Agreement is hereby adopted by the parties and incorporated into the Agreement in its entirety, and shall replace the
prior existing Clauses of Exhibit B to the Agreement as if they were originally contained therein: 
 
Section 2.2    “Varitek shall register 444,416 shares with the next registration filing filed with the SEC. It is understood that these shares may be subject to lock up
agreements and other selling conditions based on market conditions of the company.” 
 
Section 2.3    “Baco International hereby agrees that it will not dispose of shares of Varitek’s common stock in an amount greater than 150,000 shares when Varitek’s next registration
filing is filed with the SEC and in amounts greater than 29,442 shares per quarter thereafter beginning in January 2003 through the 2nd quarter of 2005.” 
 
The parties to
the Agreement hereby accept and agree to the First Amendment as written above. 
 
VARITEK INDUSTRIES, INC. 
 
/s/ 

Randy S. Bayne, Chief Executive Officer 
 
BACO INTERNATIONAL 
 
/s/ 

Harry L. Bayne, President
#### Hopkins v. State

110,941

09/14/2015

Denied.

Unpubhshed
#### Progressive Products, Inc. v. Swartz

109,978

08/20/2015

Denied. ..

Unpublished
# C_2018385EN.01000501.xml

| 25.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 385/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 385/5

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 385/04)

| Member State | France |
| --- | --- |
| Route concerned | Aurillac – Paris (Orly) |
| Period of validity of the contract | From 1 June 2019 to 31 May 2023 |
| Deadline for the submission of applications and tenders | 10 January 2019 (12.00, Paris time) |
| Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained | Département du Cantal |
| 28 avenue Gambetta |
| 15015 Aurillac Cedex |
| France |
| Tel. +33 0471462249 |
| Fax +33 0471465982 |
| Email: servicetransports@cantal.fr |
| or at: |
| http://www.cantal.fr |

Member State

France

Route concerned

Aurillac – Paris (Orly)

Period of validity of the contract

From 1 June 2019 to 31 May 2023

Deadline for the submission of applications and tenders

10 January 2019 (12.00, Paris time)

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation relating to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained

Département du Cantal

28 avenue Gambetta

15015 Aurillac Cedex

France

Tel. +33 0471462249

Fax +33 0471465982

Email: servicetransports@cantal.fr

or at:

http://www.cantal.fr

where the buyer profile can be found

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHARLES BECKLES,

Petitioner,
v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, * * Respondent. No. 13-71370 Agency No. A020-425-414
AMENDED ORDER *

O n Petition f

or Review of

an Order of

the Board of Im m igration Appeals Argued and Subm itted March 5, 2015

Portland, Oregon Bef ore: FISHER, PAEZ and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Pursuant to the parties’ joint request at oral argum ent, this case is rem anded to the Board of Im m igration Appeals (BIA). 1. As the governm ent conceded at oral argum ent, the BIA erred as a m atter of 

# F IL ED
MAY26 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* 

### This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e d e nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** 

### L ore tta E. Ly nc h is substitute d for he r pre de c e ssor, Eric H. Holde r, Jr., a s Unite d Sta te s Attorne y

Ge ne ra l. Fe d. R . App. P. 43(c )(2).law in holding that Beckles’ three-y ear probationary sentence disqualif ied his conviction f or treatm ent under Lujan-Armendariz v. INS , 222 F.3d 728, 749 (9th Cir. 2000), overruled by Nunez-Reyes v. Holder , 646 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). Although we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s exercise of discretion in declining to reopen proceedings sua sponte, we have jurisdiction to review the underly ing legal error. See Singh v. Holder , 771 F.3d 647, 650 (9th Cir. 2014). Lujan-Armendariz

itself extended Federal First Of f e nder Act (FFOA) treatm ent to a noncitizen who successf u lly served f ive y ears of

probation f

or a sim ple drug of

f ense. See 222 F.3d at 733. Sim i larly , in Rice v. Holder , 597 F.3d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 2010), overruled on other grounds by Nunez-Reyes , 646 F.3d at 695, we held that a controlled substance of

f ense was eligible f

or FFOA treatm ent even though the petitioner had been sentenced to three y ears’ probation, of which he had served approxim a tely 19 m onths. See id. Rem and is appropriate in order f or the BIA to correctly apply Lujan-Armendariz in determ ining whether to sua sponte reopen Beckles’ proceedings. 2. In considering whether to exercise its discretion to grant Beckles’ m otion to reopen, the BIA m ay

consider other issues raised by the parties on appeal, including Beckles’ claim

that his conviction was vacated f or substantive (not rehabilitative) reasons, see Cardoso-Tlaseca v. Gonzales , 460 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2006); Matter of Pickering , 23 I. & N. Dec. 621, 624 (BIA 2003), and the governm e n t’s claim that 

### 2Beckles’ divorce f rom his U.S. citizen wif

e and potential entry

into the country

as a
crewm em ber in 1977 render him

ineligible f

or relief
. The parties have agreed to stay petitioner’s rem oval pending a decision in this
m atter by the BIA. REMANDED.



### 3
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report of Ruby Mining Co. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, G.
Howard Collingwood, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Murray D.
Bradley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of our knowledge:

   1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

By: /s/ G. Howard Collingwood
   -----------------------------
G. Howard Collingwood Chief
Executive Officer
April 13, 2005



/s/ Murray D. Bradley
--------------------------------
Murray D. Bradley
Chief Financial Officer
April 13, 2005






                                       76


<PAGE>
Interim Decision 44458 

IIan= or Enamor 

In Section 212(e) Proceedings 

A.-18808086 

Decided by District Director January 29, ,1965 

Waiver of the 2-year-foreign-realdence requirement of motion 212(e), Immigradon and Nationality Act, as amended, is granted an exchange visitor alien; 

a 'research physicist, and his dependent wife and 2 minor children, since his 

compliance with. the requirement world be detrimental. to a program of 

official interest to the Atomic Einergp Commission and the Department of 

State has recommended favorably in the matter, 

Dr. Erginsoy, a, forty-year-old native and citizen of Turkey, entered• the United States as an exchange visitor, with his dependent 

wife and two.unmarried, minor children, on July 6, 1962. He has 

since been a participant in Exchange Visitor Program -No. P—I-1957, 

-sponsored by Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New YorkUpon his arrival, he commenced a one-year appointment as Visiting 

Associate' Physicist in the Physics Department of the Laboratory. 

On -July 1, 1963, Dr. ErginsOy accepted a two-year appointment as 

Associate Physicist on the Laboratory's Scientific Staff. This appointment is currently in'effect. 

Dr. Erginsoy came to the Brookhaven National' Laboratory after 

completing a Iwo-year appointment at 'the Ilternational Atomic • 

'Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria. He states that he is not obliga- ; 

 ted by employment commitments of any kind. 

Dr. Erginsoy's present sponsor wishes to retain his services as a 

' research physicist for an indefinite period of time. 

The Atomic Energy Commission requested the Department of 

State to recommend to this Service that Dr. Erginsoy and his family 

be granted waivers of the two -year foreign residence requirement of 

section 212(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, 

applicablVto exchange aliens. On January 22, 1965, the Department 

of State.upon reviewing the circumstances, recommended. that such 

waivers be, granted on the grounds that Dr. Erginsoy's compliance 

144 
. ,Interim-Decision *1458 

with this statutory requirement would be clearly detrimental to a 

program of official interest to the Atomic Energy Commission. 

ORDER: Pursuant to the favorable recommendation of the Department of State, it is ordered that the two-year foreign residence 

requirement of section 212(e) of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act, as amended, be and the same is hereby waived in the case of Dr. 

Cavid Erginsoy. 

It 18 further ordered that the above-cited statutory requirement 

be and the same is hereby waived in the cases of Mrs. Ulker Say 

Erginsoy, All Erginsoy and Omer Erginsoy. soy.

145
#### Gonzales v. State

109,157

07/21/2015

Denied.

Unpubhshed
ASRAC Agenda

.Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee

U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building

1000 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20585

February 26, 2013

Tuesday, February 26

ROOM: 8E‐089

8:30‐9:00 ARRIVAL

9:00‐10:00 Swearing In (Closed to Public)

Ethics Discussion (Closed to Public)

DOE Human Capital Management

DOE General Counsel

10:00‐10:45 Welcome and Introductions Roland Risser/ ASRAC Members

10:45‐11:15 Overview of Committee Operations/

Framework

John Cymbalsky/ ASRAC

Members

11:15‐12:00 Appliance Standards Program Overview   John Cymbalsky

12:00‐1:00 LUNCH

1:00‐2:30 Committee Task Discussion – Identifying

Initial Committee Efforts to Best Facilitate

Program Activities  

DOE/ ASRAC Members

2:30‐3:00 Next Steps ‐ Committee Vote on Tasks

Discuss Plans to Form Necessary Working

Groups and Identify Next Meeting

Date/Location for Committee

DOE/ ASRAC Members

3:00‐3:30 Public Comment Period Public Attendees

3:30‐3:45 Closing Comments/ Adjourn   

Additional Information:

Web site: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/asrac.html  

Docket: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE‐2013‐BT‐NOC‐0005
# Table 5.6
#### State v. Christian

106,023

10/01/13

Denied

Unpublished
# C_2018084EN.01000101.xml

| 6.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 84/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84/1

---

Notice for the attention of the persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine

(2018/C 84/01)

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons who appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP (1), as amended by Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/333 (2), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 (3) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine.

1

2

3

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the abovementioned Annexes should be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Decision 2014/119/CFSP and in Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine. The grounds for designations of those persons appear in the relevant entries in those Annexes.

The attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex II to Regulation (EU) No 208/2014, in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 4 of the Regulation).

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the abovementioned list should be reconsidered, before 1 December 2018 to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 26.

1

(2)  OJ L 63, 6.3.2018, p. 48.

2

(3)  OJ L 66, 6.3.2014, p. 1.

3

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15669-15670]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8348]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation Policy


Proposed Subsequent Arrangement

    Pursuant to Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (42 U.S.C. 2160), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
``subsequent arrangement'' under the Agreement for Cooperation between 
the Government of the United States of America and the Government of 
Canada concerning Civil Uses of Atomic Energy, as amended, and the 
Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States 
of America and the Government of Australia concerning Peaceful Uses of 
Nuclear Energy.
    The subsequent arrangement to be carried out under the above-
mentioned agreements involves approval of the following retransfer: 
RTD/CA(AU)-2 for the transfer of 200.8 kilograms of heavy water, 
containing approximately 5.5 ci/kilogram tritium, from Australia to 
Canada as part of the detritiation exchange, will be used by Ontario

[[Page 15670]]

Hydro in the operation of the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station.
    In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended, it has been determined that this subsequent arrangement will 
not be inimical to the common defense and security.
    This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner that fifteen 
days after the date of publication of this notice.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on March 26, 1997.
Cherie P. Fitzgerald,
Director, International Policy and Analysis Division, Office of Arms 
Control and Nonproliferation.
[FR Doc. 97-8348 Filed 4-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
No. 11-1085.

#### Amgen Inc. et al. *v.*Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds.

C. A. 9th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 567 U. S. 905.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae*and for divided argument granted.
No. 12-5748.

#### Carter *v.*Wolfenbarger, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                       Exhibit 3
                     Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws.

The Amendments to the Articles of Incorporation of The Rouse Company adopted May
 26, 1988 and the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of The Rouse
 Company, dated May 27, 1988, are incorporated by reference from the Exhibits to
 the Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December 31,
 1988.

The Articles of Amendment to the Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation
 of The Rouse Company, which Articles of Amendment were effective January 10,
 1991, are incorporated by reference from the Exhibits to the Company's Form 10-
 K Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1990.

The Articles Supplementary to the Charter of The Rouse Company, dated February
 17, 1993, are incorporated by reference from the Exhibits to the Company's Form
 10-K Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1992.

The Articles Supplementary to the Charter of The Rouse Company, dated September
 26, 1994, are incorporated by reference from the Exhibits to the Company's S-3
 Registration Statement (No. 33-57707).

The Articles Supplementary to the Charter of The Rouse Company, dated December
 27, 1994, are incorporated by reference from the Exhibits to the Company's S-3
 Registration Statement (No. 33-57707).

The Articles Supplementary to the Charter of The Rouse Company, dated June 5,
 1996, are incorporated by reference from the Exhibits to the Company's S-3
 Registration Statement (No. 333-20781).

The Articles Supplementary to the Charter of The Rouse Company, dated June 11,
 1996, are incorporated by reference from the Exhibits to the Company's Form S-3
 Registration Statement (No. 333-20781).

The Articles Supplementary to the Charter of The Rouse Company, dated February
 21, 1998, are incorporated by reference from the Exhibit to the Company's
 Current Report on Form 8-K, dated February 26, 1998.

The Bylaws of The Rouse Company, as amended November 19, 1996 and January 30,
 1998, are incorporated by reference from the Exhibits to the Company's Form S-3
 Registration Statement (No. 333-20781).

The Amendments to the Bylaws of The Rouse Company, effective February 24, 2000,
 and the Articles Supplementary to the Charter of The Rouse Company, dated
 February 24, 2000, are incorporated by reference from the Exhibits to the
 Company's Current Report on Form 8-K, dated February 29, 2000.

All documents referred to above may be found in Commission file number 0-1743.
#### State v. Norton

112,664

112,665

12/14/2015

Denied.

Unpublished
#### State v. Coleman

110,430

07/24/2015

Denied.

Unpublished
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 17183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9019]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulation Commission
[Docket No. RP97-52-000]


Columbia Gulf Transmission Co.; Notice of Informal Settlement 
Conference

April 3, 1997.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened 
in the above-captioned proceeding at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, April 10, 
1997, at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE, Washington, DC, for the purpose of exploring the 
possible settlement of the above referenced dockets.
    Any party as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant as 
defined in 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to 
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status 
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214) prior to 
attending.
    For additional information please contact Michael D. Cotleur, (202) 
208-1076, or Thomas Burgess (202) 208-2058.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-9019 Filed 4-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M