alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Nos. 102,256 102,257

#### State of Kansas, *Appellee,*v. Heather Page Hilton, *Appellant.*

(349 P.3d 475)

Opinion filed May 22, 2015.

*Heather Cessna,*of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.

*Thomas J. Drees,*county attorney, argued die cause, and *RristaferR. Ailslieger,*deputy solicitor general, *Steve Six,*former attorney general, and *Derek Schmidt,*attorney general, were on the briefs for appellee.

*Per Curiam:*

This court accepted this case on the petition for review filed by defendant Heather Page Hilton for the specific purpose of deciding whether both the first and second of Hilton’s two consecutive 12-month probation terms could be revoked as a result of a violation that occurred during the first 12 months. A panel of our Court of Appeals had affirmed the district court’s revocation of both of Hilton’s probation terms. *State v. Hilton,*49 Kan. App. 2d 586, 311 P.3d 1161 (2013).

On the way to the panel’s ruling, the Court of Appeals judges left for another day the predicate issue of whether the district judge was empowered to grant consecutive probation terms to Hilton in the first place. 49 Kan. App. 2d at 589-90. Judge G. Gordon At-cheson expressed some reservation about the existence of such a power in a brief concurrence. 49 Kan. App. 2d at 594-95.

Earlier, we had effectively compelled the panel to address the merits of the dual revocation issue by granting a petition for review on the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of Hilton’s appeal as moot and *992summarily reversing and remanding the case. *State v. Hilton,*295 Kan. 845, 286 P.3d 871 (2012). Although Plilton had already completed service of the prison terms underlying the consecutive pro-bations, we then believed the dual revocation issue to be one of public importance likely to arise in other cases. 295 Kan. at 851-52. As such, we further believed it to be a worthy exception to application of the mootness doctrine. 295 Kan. at 851-52.

On closer examination, we have concluded that the Court of Appeals had it right in the first place and that this appeal should be dismissed as moot.

It is logically and legally impossible to approve or disapprove of the panel’s rationale in affirming the dual revocation without first addressing whether the district judge had the power to grant consecutive probation terms. But it would be unwise to decide that predicate question when the parties have not truly set up or argued opposing viewpoints and no client’s fate hangs in the balance. Here, the parties agreed on the grant of consecutive probation terms in the district court, and neither questioned their propriety before the Court of Appeals or before this court. Our adversarial system typically depends upon committed advocacy to fully explore and expose strengths and weaknesses in pro and con arguments on the legal issues that come before us. We will follow the typical pattern here and await a more appropriate setting to consider whether a district judge may grant consecutive probation terms and, if so, under what circumstances such terms may be revoked.

The Court of Appeals decision is vacated. This appeal is dismissed.
<PAGE>
 
                       Exhibit 23.1



             Consent of Independent Accountants
                              
                              
                              
We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Prospectuses constituting part of the Registration
Statements on Forms S-3 (File Nos. 33-57895 and 33-64307),
Form S-4 (File No. 33-61047 and 33-91250) and in the
Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos.33-67430,
33-54511, 33-67432, 33-54519, 33-67324, 33-51331, 33-51885,
33-52025, 33-59579 and 33-61855) of Frontier Corporation of
our report dated January 22, 1996, appearing on page 25 of
the Annual Report to Shareowners which is incorporated by
reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.  We also
consent to the incorporation by reference of our report on
the Financial Statement Schedule, which appears on page 37
of this Form 10-K.


/s/ Price Waterhouse LLP


PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Rochester, New York
March 25, 1996
```

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 71 (Monday, April 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 18151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-9450]

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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[97-044]

Notice of Agency Report Forms Under OMB Review

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

SUMMARY: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, as part of 
its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, 
invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this 
opportunity to comment on proposed an/or continuing information 
collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. 3506(a)(2)(A)). The reports will be utilized by 
the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization as a method 
for determining if developmental assistance provided to small 
disadvantaged businesses by prime contractor's performance meets the 
standards established in NASA policy. The Agency's ability to manage 
the program effectively would be greatly diminished without receiving 
the described reports, which are part of the ongoing performance fee 
evaluation process.

DATES: On or before June 13, 1997.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to Mr. Richard Kall, Code 
HK, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 
20546-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carmela Simonson, NASA Reports 
Officer, (202) 358-1223.

    Title: Small Business and Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns.
    OMB Number: 2700-0078.
    Type of review: Extension.
    Need and Uses: Reports are required to monitor Mentor-Protege 
performance and progress according to the Mentor-Protege Agreement. 
Reports are internal control to determine if Agency objectives are met.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit 
institutions, State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 48.
    Responses Per Respondent: 2.
    Annual Responses: 96.
    Hours Per Request: 1.
    Annual Burden Hours: 96.
    Frequency of Report: Semi-annually.
Donald J. Andreotta,
Deputy Chief Information Officer (Operations), Office of the 
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-9450 Filed 4-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
```
No. 12-5658.

#### Buggs *v.*Rapelje, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
### Faulk, Scott (OST)
From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments:
Aloha, ;-_ ._,: - - '' , --Pa'oneakai Lee-Namakaeha <kauikeolani_2004@hotmail.com>

- 'TUesday, April 29, 2014 7:16 PM

_E_AS_(QST)

### p~titi6hs for Mokulele claiming to speak on behalf of Kalaupapa Residents is FALSE! John_Puaoi_(Correspondence).pdf

We (residence of Kalaupapa) have been gettingwind thatthere are residents from other communities that are not part of Kalaupapa claimingto speak on behalfofourselves (residents of Kalaupapa). How can anyone claim to speak on behalfof Kalaupapa residents in choosing Mokulele forthe EAS when Kalaupapa community residents want MAKANI KAI FOR THE EAS! I am asking the EAS to reconsider those petitionsthat claim to be speaking on behalfof Kalaupapa residents when they are not a resident of Kalaupapa. No one should have more ofan opinion forthe EAS than those who do/will use that service! I have attached acopy ofatemplate ofa petition for Mokulele forthe EAS in Kalaupapa. The person who is signingthe petition is claimingto speak on behalfof Kalaupapa residence when he, John Puaoi is NOT a resident of Kalaupapa, therefore he can only speak on his behlaf. I do not understand why people who are not from Kalaupapa, or who will not use the service should have an opinion! The EAS in Kalaupapa will affect us (those who live here and those who use the service). During our community meeting here in Kalaupapa on the first Tuesday ofApril, 99% ofthe community members in attendance pleaded with Mokuleleto withdrawtheir bid forthe EAS and explained that we as a community do notfeel that Mokulelel will meet our needs. We have expressed continued faith and encourage that Makani Kai continue to provide the EAS into Kalaupapa! My name is Pa'oneakai Lee-Namakaeha and I am a resident of Kalaupapa and Iwant MAKANI KAI as the EAS for Kalaupapa!

1
# C_2019063EN.01000102.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9244 — OMERS/Altice/SFR FTTH)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 63/02)

On 1 February 2019, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9244. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32019M9244. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
#### Goodland RRHD v. Barrera

110,248

06/29/2015

Denied.

Unpubhshed
<PAGE>   1
                                                        EXHIBIT 23

[Letter Head]

The Board of Directors
Rubbermaid Incorporated

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (File
Nos. 33-63420, 33-56105, 33-57091, 33-57093, 33-57097 and 33-61817) on Form
S-8, and in the registration statements (File Nos. 33-54799 and 33-00471) on
Form S-3 of Rubbermaid Incorporated of our report dated February 2, 1996,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Rubbermaid Incorporated and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and the related consolidated
statements of earnings, cash flows, and shareholders' equity for each of the
years in the three year period ended December 31, 1995, which report appears in
the December 31, 1995, annual report on Form 10-K of Rubbermaid Incorporated.

/s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Cleveland, Ohio
March 13, 1996
# C_2021232EN.01007401.xml

| 16.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 232/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 232/74

---

P9_TA(2019)0062

Nomination of a member of the Court of Auditors — François-Roger Cazala

European Parliament decision of 26 November 2019 on the nomination of François-Roger Cazala as a Member of the Court of Auditors (C9-0121/2019 — 2019/0814(NLE))

(Consultation)

(2021/C 232/17)

The European Parliament,

| — | having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0121/2019), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Article 286(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C9-0121/2019),

| — | having regard to Rule 129 of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 129 of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0031/2019), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A9-0031/2019),

| A. | whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control proceeded to evaluate the credentials of the nominee, in particular in view of the requirements laid down in Article 286(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union;

| B. | whereas at its meeting of 12 November 2019 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

B.

whereas at its meeting of 12 November 2019 the Committee on Budgetary Control heard the Council’s nominee for membership of the Court of Auditors;

| 1. | Delivers a favourable opinion on the Council’s nomination of François-Roger Cazala as a Member of the Court of Auditors; |
| --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward this decision to the Council and, for information, to the Court of Auditors, the other institutions of the European Union and the audit institutions of the Member States. |
| --- | --- |

2.

---
#### McCormick v. State

106,324

08/29/13

Denied.

Unpublished
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

No.____________

_________________________________ 

WYDELL LORRAINE DIXON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

_________________________________ 

MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE PETITION

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

_________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________ 

 

 R. Scott Shearer

 TBA No. 00786464

929 Preston, Suite 200

 Houston, TX 77002 

(713) 254-5629 

 (713) 224-2889 FAX

ShearerLegal@Yahoo.com

 Attorney for Appellant

 

 January 15, 2014 

On Petition for Discretionary Review from the Court of Appeals for 

the First District, Houston, Texas in Cause Nos. 01-13-00408-CR; 01-

13-00409-CR 01-13-00410-CR & 01-13-00411-CR Affirming an appeal

from judgments issued in Cause Nos. 12CR748; 12CR749;12CR750 & 

12CR751 from the 56th District Court of Galveston County, Texas.

PD-0064-15, PD-0065-15, PD-0066-15 & PD-0067-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 1/15/2015 10:49:02 PM

Accepted 1/21/2015 3:53:12 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS:

NOW COMES, WYDELL LORRAINE DIXON, and files this Motion To 

Extend Time To File Petition For Discretionary Review. In support of this motion, he 

would respectfully show the Court the following:

I.

In a PUBLISHED opinion delivered December 16, 2014, a panel of the First Court 

of Appeals AFFIRMED Appellant’s appeals from four judgments of conviction for cruelty 

to animals by the 56th District Court of Galveston County. Appellant did not file a motion 

for rehearing. Appellant’s Petition for Discretionary Review is due on January 16, 2014. 

This motion to extend time to file petition for discretionary review is timely filed within 

thirty days after the court of appeals issued its opinion or overruled Appellant’s Motion for 

Rehearing or within fifteen days of said deadline. See TEX. R. APP. PROC. 68.2. 

II.

Appellant is requesting additional time to file the petition for discretionary review. 

More time is necessary to research the issues involved. 

III.

Appellant asserts that this motion is not made solely for purposes of delay and that 

the granting of this motion will not prejudice the rights of the State.
IV.

Appellant is therefore requesting a thirty [30] day extension so that his Petition may 

be timely filed. 

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant prays that the 

Honorable Court of Criminal Appeals will grant his Motion To Extend Time To File 

Petition For Discretionary Review.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/R. SCOTT SHEARER

R. Scott Shearer

TBA No. 00786464

929 Preston, Suite 200

Houston, TX 77002

(713) 254-5629

(713) 224-2889 FAX

ShearerLegal@Yahoo.com

Attorney for Appellant

January 15, 2014
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of this Motion has been served upon the State of Texas by emailing a copy of same to the following parties at the following addresses on this the 15th

day of January, 2014:

BRENT HAYNES

GALVESTON COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

600 59TH ST # 1001

GALVESTON, TX 77551

BRENT.HAYNES@CO.GALVESTON.TX.US

/s/R. SCOTT SHEARER

R. Scott Shearer
#### State v. Williams

113,170

07/15/2016

Denied.

Unpubhshed
Welcome to the U.S. Energy Information Administration's Energy Efficiency Web Site. 
If you are having trouble, call 202-586-8800 for help.Home > Energy 
            Users >Energy 
            Efficiency Page >Carbon 
            Emissions in the Stone, Clay, and Glass Industry


Carbon 
        Emissions in the Stone, 
        Clay, and Glass IndustryThe 
            Industry at a Glance, 1994(SIC Code: 32)Total Energy-Related 
            Emissions: 21.6 million metric tons of carbon (MMTC)
                 -- Pct. of All Manufacturers: 5.8%Total First Use of Energy: 
            944 trillion Btu
                 -- Pct. of All Manufacturers: 4.4%Carbon Intensity: 22.85 
            MMTC per quadrillion BtuAdditional Emissions 
            Sources:
                 -- Cement manufacture: 9.8 MMTC
                 -- Lime manufacture: 3.7 MMTC Energy Information Administration, "1994 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 
            Survey" and Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 
            1998
    
    Energy-Related 
            Carbon Emissions, 1994Source 
            of Carbon
          Carbon 
            Emissions (million metric tons)All 
            Energy Sources
          21.6Coal
          7.2Natural 
            Gas
          6.2Net 
            Electricity
          6.1Petroleum 
            Coke
          1.3Distillate 
            Fuel Oil
          0.5All 
            Other Energy Sources
          0.3Energy Information Administration, "1994 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 
            Survey" and Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 
            1998Energy-Related 
        Carbon Emissions for Selected Stone, Clay, and Glass Industries, 1994. 
        The cement and lime manufacturing industries emit almost half of the energy-related 
        carbon in the stone, clay, and glass group of industries. The cement and 
        lime industries also emit a significant amount non-energy-related carbon. 
        Emissions for Selected Stone et al. Industries
      Energy-Related 
        Carbon Emissions for the Stone, Clay, and Glass Industry by Source, 1994. 
        Three sources, coal, natural gas, and electricity, account for 91 percent 
        of the energy-related carbon emissions in the stone, clay, and glass industry. 
        Emissions for the Stone, Clay, and Glass Industry by Source
      [Energy-Related 
          Carbon Emissions in Manufacturing]Contact:
        Stephanie 
          Battles
        Stephanie.Battles@eia.doe.gov
        (Phone: 
          (202) 586-7237)
        FAX: 
          202-586-0018**Contact Us**
	 
	 
	  URL: http://www.eia.gov/emeu/efficiency/carbon_emissions/stone.html 
      File 
        Last Modified: May 31, 2000
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 448 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 448

        Reauthorizing the John Heinz Senate Fellowship Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 9, 2010

    Mr. Specter (for himself and Mr. Casey) submitted the following 
     resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
        Reauthorizing the John Heinz Senate Fellowship Program.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. JOHN HEINZ SENATE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM.

    Senate Resolution 356, 102d Congress, agreed to October 7, 1992, is 
amended by striking section 5 and inserting the following:

``SEC. 5. FUNDS.

    ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the 
provisions of this resolution $85,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 
through 2014.''.
                                 <all>
```
Filed 11/9/05 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2005 ND 185

In the Interest of E.I., Jr., a child.

Ronald W. McBeth, Richland

County Assistant State’s Attorney, Petitioner and Appellee

v.

E.I., Jr., a child; and E.I., Sr.,

and S.H., parents of said child, Respondents

E.I., Sr., parent of said child, Respondent and Appellant

No. 20050024

Appeal from the Juvenile Court of Richland County, Southeast Judicial District, the Honorable Ronald E. Goodman, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Ronald W. McBeth, Assistant State’s Attorney, Law Enforcement Center, 413 3rd Avenue North, Wahpeton, N.D. 58075, for petitioner and appellee; submitted on brief.

Don R. Krassin, Town Centre Square, 500 Dakota Avenue, Suite 240, Wahpeton, N.D. 58075-4436, for respondent and appellant; submitted on brief.

Interest of E.I., Jr.

No. 20050024

Per Curiam.

[¶1]E.I., Sr., appeals the Richland County Juvenile Court order that terminated his parental rights to E.I., Jr., on the grounds of abandonment.  E.I., Sr., argues that he did not abandon his son, nor was there deprivation, because he was involuntarily denied contact with his child.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring

Daniel J. Crothers