alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-41051 Conference Calendar

RUBEN CHAPA-IBARRA, SR., Petitioner-Appellant,

versus ERNEST CHANDLER, Warden, United States Penitentiary; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondents-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:00-CV-897

-------------------- August 20, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Ruben Chapa-Ibarra, Sr., federal prisoner #64530-080, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. Chapa-Ibarra asserts that, pursuant to the “savings clause” of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, he is entitled to assert in a habeas corpus petition his claim based on Richardson v. United States , 526 U.S. 813, 815-16 (1999). Chapa-IbarraNo. 01-41051 -2- contends that he was not found guilty of every element of his continuing criminal enterprise offense because the jury was not properly instructed under Richardson that it was required to unanimously agree on which specific acts constituted his continuing series of violations. As Chapa-Ibarra does not challenge his convictions on any of the other grounds raised in his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, those claims have been waived.
See Hughes v. Johnson , 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999). To trigger the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a habeas petitioner’s claim: (1) must be “based on a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted of a nonexistent offense” and (2) must have been “foreclosed by circuit law at the time when the claim should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first [28 U.S.C.] § 2255 motion.” Reyes-Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893, 904 (5th Cir. 2001). Because ChapaIbarra’s arguments do not amount to a claim that he was convicted for conduct that did not constitute a crime, he has failed to satisfy the first prong of the savings clause test. See Jeffers v. Chandler , 253 F.3d 827, 830-31 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 476 (2001). The district court’s judgment dismissing Chapa-Ibarra’s habeas corpus petition is AFFIRMED.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 27, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134750 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

ERIC A. BRAVERMAN, Successor Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, Personal Representative of the Estate Justices of Patricia Swann, Deceased,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 134750 

 COA: 264091 
 Wayne CC: 05-502345-NH

GARDEN CITY HOSPITAL, a/k/a

GARDEN CITY HOSPITAL,

OSTEOPATHIC, 

 Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

JOHN R. SCHAIRER, D.O., GARY 

YASHINSKY, M.D., ABHINAV 

RAINA, M.D., and PROVIDENCE 

HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTERS, 

INC., 

 Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

By order of October 12, 2007, the application for leave to appeal the June 5, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in 

Braverman v Garden City Hospital (Docket Nos. 134445-6). On order of the Court, the 

case having been decided on April 9, 2008, 480 Mich 1159 (2008), the application is 

again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions 

presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0519 

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. 

May 27, 2008 

 Clerk
# C_2019140EN.01000901.xml

| 16.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/9

---

Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force on imports into the Union of melamine originating in the People’s Republic of China: change of the name of a company subject to the minimum import price for cooperating non-sampled companies

(2019/C 140/06)

Imports of Melamine originating in the People’s Republic of China are subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty, imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1171 (1).

One company located in the People’s Republic of China, TARIC (2) additional code A987, whose exports to the Union of melamine are subject to the minimum import price of EUR/tonne 1 153 informed the Commission that it had changed its name as set out below.

That company asked the Commission to confirm that the change of name does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the minimum import price applied to it under its previous name.

The Commission examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of name in no way affects the findings of Regulation (EU) 2017/1171.

Therefore, the references in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1171 to:

| Holitech Technology Co. Ltd | 1 153 | — | A987 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

Holitech Technology Co. Ltd

1 153

—

A987

should be read as:

| Shandong Holitech Chemical Industry Co., Ltd | 1 153 | — | A987 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

Shandong Holitech Chemical Industry Co., Ltd

1 153

—

A987

The TARIC additional code A987 previously attributed to Holitech Technology Co. Ltd shall apply to Shandong Holitech Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.

---

(1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1171 of 30 June 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of melamine originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 170, 1.7.2017, p. 62).

(2)  The Integrated Tariff of the European Union.

---
|                                                                     
|---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                       
|View History: Annual                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                 
|View History:                                                        
|                                                                     
|Michigan Natural Gas Imports Price  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                     
|                                                                     
|Michigan Natural Gas Imports Price  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 1.93  
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        | 1.70   | 1.60   | 2.02   | 2.16   | 1.90   | 2.89   | 2.84   | 2.15   | 2.60  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 4.28   | 4.63   | 3.21   | 5.88   | 6.51   | 9.93   | 7.44   | 7.03   | 9.55   | 4.50  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 4.73   | 4.38   | 2.88   | 4.02   | 8.34   | 2.87   | 2.67   | 3.14   | 3.03   | 2.41  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2.05   | 4.23   | 6.34   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                      
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                                      
|View History:                                                                       
|                                                                                    
|Federal Offshore--Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                    
|                                                                                    
|Federal Offshore--Gulf of Mexico Natural Gas Gross Withdrawals  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                    

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0    | Year-1    | Year-2    | Year-3    | Year-4    | Year-5    | Year-6    | Year-7    | Year-8    | Year-9   
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | --------- | ---------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |           |           |           |           |           |           |           | 5,242,169 | 5,110,327 | 5,052,936
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 4,967,694 | 5,066,015 | 4,547,627 | 4,447,348 | 4,000,685 | 3,150,818 | 2,914,131 | 2,813,197 | 2,329,955 | 2,444,102
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2,259,144 | 1,830,913 | 1,527,875 | 1,326,697 | 1,275,738 | 1,307,641 | 1,220,656 | 1,078,218 | 992,704   | 1,034,038
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 806,336   | 792,102   | 784,567   | 740,898   |           |           |           |           |           |          
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 4/30/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 5/31/2024
391A16

#### Next Advisor Continued, Inc. v. Lendingtree, Inc., et al.

Defs Motion to Amend Certificate of Service of Brief

Allowed 12/01/2016
#### COM. v. LOPEZ, J.

3487 EDA 2015

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/31/2017

CP-51-CR-0012713-2009 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed
|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                            
|View History:  Monthly  Annual Download Data (XLS File)                    
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                              
|View History:  Monthly  Annual                                              
|View History:                                                               
|                                                                            
|South Dakota Natural Gas Industrial Price  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                            
|                                                                            
|South Dakota Natural Gas Industrial Price  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                            

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 4.02   | 3.28   | 3.35  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 4.38   | 6.08   | 4.28   | 5.78   | 6.26   | 8.03   | 9.32   | 8.32   | 9.00   | 6.07  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 5.92   | 6.25   | 5.37   | 5.67   | 6.88   | 5.34   | 4.78   | 5.11   | 5.02   | 4.78  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 4.40   | 6.06   | 7.49   | 5.30   |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 7/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 8/30/2024
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 20 - 00359 - CR AUSTIN CALLAWAY SELLERS , A PPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 47th District Court Randall County, Texas Trial Court No . 28,416 -

A , Honorable Dan L. Schaap , Presiding 

### January 12 , 2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PIRTLE and PARKER and DOSS, JJ . Appellant, Austin Callaway Sellers , appeals his conviction for assault of a family or household member , 1 enhanced, and sentence to six years’ confinement. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The trial court sentenced appellant on November 4, 2020
. Because no motion for new trial was filed , a ppellant’s notice of appeal was due within thirty days after sentence

1 T EX . P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.01(b)(2)(A) ( West Supp. 2020 ).2

was imposed, i .e., by December 4 , 2020. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.2(a)( 1 ) (requiring a notice of appeal to be filed within thirty days after sentence is imposed). Appellant filed a notice of appeal on December 17 , 2020, without filing a motion for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 26.3 (allowing appellate courts to extend the time to file a notice of appeal if the notice and a motion for an extension is filed within fifteen days of the deadline). The timely filing of a written notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to hearing an appeal. Castillo v. State , 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). I f a notice of appeal is not timely filed, a court of appeals has no option but to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction
. Id
. When a notice of appeal , but no motion for an extension of time , is filed within the fifteen - day extension period, an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to dispose of the purported appeal in any manner other than by dismissing it for want of jurisdiction. 2 Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) ( en banc)
. By letter of December 22 , 2020, we notified appellant of the consequences of his late notice of appeal and directed him to file a response showing how we have jurisdiction by December 31
. Appellant did not file a response and has had no further communication with this Court.

2 Unlike civil appeals, a motion for an extension of time is not implied when a notice of appeal is filed within the fifteen - day extension period. Lair v. State , 321 S.W.3d 158, 159 (Tex. App.
— Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d ).3

Because a ppellant ’ s notice of appeal was untimely filed, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. 3 Per Curiam Do not publish.

3 Appellant may be entitled to relief by filing an application for writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration of an out - of - time appeal. See T EX . C ODE C RIM . P ROC . A NN . art. 11.07 (West 2015 )
.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

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 Chaparral Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark A. Fischer, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 result of operations of the Company.



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ Mark A. Fischer                    
|Mark A. Fischer Chief Executive Officer

Date: April 2, 2007
#### IN RE: ADOPTION OF: K.N.L., a Minor

940 EDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/24/2017

2016-A0184 (Montgomery)

Affirmed
No. 12-6718.

#### Taylor *v.*United States.

C. A. 6th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 79 (Friday, April 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 20413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10937]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration on Aging


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) Review: Comment Request: Extension

AGENCY: Administration on Aging, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Administration on Aging is announcing an opportunity for 
public comment on the continued collection of certain information by 
the agency. Under the paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Federal agencies 
are required to publish collection of information in the Federal 
Register, including each proposed extension of an existing collection 
of information and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to 
the notice. This notice solicits comments on the requirements relating 
to the submission, by AoA grantees, of an annual Certification of 
Maintenance of Effort form on all Title III grants.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Title: Certification of Maintenance of Effort.
    Description: The Certification of Maintenance of Effort form will 
be used by the Administration on Aging to verify the amount of State 
expenditures and make comparisons with the three previous years' 
expenditures to assure that the States are in compliance with 45 CFR 
1321.49. This information will be used for federal oversight of the 
Title III Program.
    Respondents: State Agencies on Aging.
    Number of Respondents: 57.
    Average Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Average Burden Hours: 1/2 hour per State Agency.
    Additional Information: Copies of the collection may be obtained by 
writing to the Administration on Aging, Office of Executive 
Secretariat, 330 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20201, Attn: 
AoA Reports Clearance Officer. Written comments and recommendations for 
the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the 
following address: Administration on Aging, Wilbur J. Cohen Federal 
Building, 330 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20201 ATTN: 
Margaret A. Tolson.
Jeanette C. Takamura,
Assistant Secretary for Aging.
[FR Doc. 98-10937 Filed 4-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-M
#### COM. v. W.A.H., III

1516 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania,

08/01/2017

2015-190

(Franklin)

Affirmed
#### COM. v. STRUM, A.

2277 EDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/27/2017

CP-51-CR-0504651-1997 (Philadelphia)

Affirmed
steam

_ record - Re: RRI Ener gy Niles Power Plant Request

Greetings,

This e-mail is a confirmation that your exte nsion request for the steam electric effluent guidelines questionnaire was received. Extension requests will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Please be aware that submittal of an ex tension request to EPA does not alter the due date of your questionnaire unless and until EPA agre es to the extension and establishes a new date.
Sincerely,

-----"Tondo, Rocco" <RTondo@rrienergy.com> wrote: -----

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA From: "Tondo, Rocco" <R Tondo@rrienergy.com> Date: 06/30/2010 09:41AM cc: "Smith, James R. (Ran dy)" <JRSmith@rrienergy.c om>, "Whelan, Kerry M." <KWhelan@rrienergy.com>, "Frank, Stephen" <SFrank@ rrienergy.com>, <DIANE.R.MARTINI@Sargentlundy.com>, "Mac ey, Francis E" <fmacey@rrienergy.com>, "Cunningham, Allison" <ACunningham@rrienergy.com>, "Greek, Matt E." <MGreek@rrienergy.com>, "Brown, Steven W." <SwBrown@rrienergy.com >, "Senedak, Thomas From: <Alicea.Jezebele @ epamail.epa. g ov> To: "Tondo, Rocco" <RTondo@rrienergy.com> Date: 7/2/2010 7:18 PM Sub j ect: Re: RRI Energy Ni les Power Plant Request Pa g e 1 of 2

3/21/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C2E3B9ED

...C." <TCSenedak@rrienergy.com> Subject: RRI Energy Ni les Power Plant Request

Dear Ms. Alicea,

Please see the attached request for a due date extensi on on the Steam Electric Q uestionnaire from the RRI Energy Niles power station. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.

Thank you,

Rocky Tondo

RRI Energy

General Manager

Niles Power Plant

1047 Belmont Ave

Niles, OH 44446

Office 330-505-4327

Cell 330-301-2788

[ attachment "US EPA Niles Request.pdf" removed by Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US] Pa g e 2 of 2

3/21/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settin g s\TMedle y \Local Settin g s\Tem p \XP g r p wise\4C2E3B9ED

...
#### State v. Stanley

111,031

08/20/2015

Denied

Unpublished