alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Wilson COLVIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. W. J. ESTELLE, Jr., Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 74-3341

Summary Calendar.*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 15, 1975.

*748Wilson Colvin, pro se.

John L. Hill, Atty. Gen., Lonny F. Zwiener, Asst. Atty. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondent-appellee.

Before COLEMAN, DYER and RO-NEY, Circuit Judges.

*

 Rule 18, 5 Cir.; Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I.

PER CURIAM.

This habeas corpus appellant, Wilson Colvin, while represented by counsel, entered his plea of guilty to robbery by assault and was sentenced to confinement in the Texas state penitentiary for a term of not less than five years nor more than life. The sentence was imposed on September 25, 1950 in McLellan County, Texas. The record is silent as to any subsequent paroles or revocations.

In any event, Colvin was correctly sentenced under the statute in effect at the time. Thereafter, effective January 1, 1974, a new Texas Penal Code provides that robbery by assault shall be punished by confinement for not less than two nor more than twenty years.

The new Code contains the standard saving clause as to convictions and sentences entered prior to January 1, 1974.

The prisoner’s contention that the enactment of the new Code and the repeal of the old Code section entitles him to release from his sentence is palpably without merit. See, e. g., Jones v. Cupp, 9 Cir., 1971, 452 F.2d 1091; Comerford v. Commonwealth, 1 Cir., 1956, 233 F.2d 294, cert. denied 352 U.S. 899, 77 S.Ct. 141, 1 L.Ed.2d 90. See, also, Bradley v. United States, 410 U.S. 605, 93. S.Ct. 1151, 35 L.Ed.2d 528 (1973) in which the Supreme Court sustained a specific saving clause as to probation, parole and suspension of sentence for certain narcotic offenders.

Thus, the District Court correctly dismissed Colvin’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief might be granted.

It has been suggested, however, that Colvin has not exhausted his state remedies and that he should be remanded to the state courts, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We note that, although couched in different language, Colvin has sought habeas relief in the state courts for basically the same reason; that is, the repeal of the old statute and the enactment of the new one.

Colvin’s petition fails to state a violation of federal constitutional right. Thus, there is nothing presented for exhaustion in the state courts. This being so, we do not read 28 U.S.C. § 2254, to command the waste, of judicial resources which would necessarily follow a remand in this case.

The judgment of the District Court is

Affirmed.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Elizabeth Copeland v. Barry Copeland

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00680

- CV

Trial court case number: 2012

- 39055

Trial court: 311th District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s Verified Unopposed Motion to Abate Appellant’s Briefing Deadlines

Pending Filing of the Supplemental Clerk’s Record and Supplemental Reporter’s Records and

Alternative Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief of Appellant is D ISMI SSED AS

MO OT , as the record has been completed.

Appellant’s brief remains due December 5, 2014. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/ Rebeca Huddle

X Act ing individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 25, 2014
#### In the MATTER OF: G.E.S., a Minor, Appeal of: W.S.

12 WDA 2017

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

07/27/2017

69 In Adoption 2016

(Erie)

Affirmed — Application to Withdraw as Counsel Granted
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 80 (Monday, April 27, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 20678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-11020]



[[Page 20678]]

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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Review of a Revised 
Information Collection: Form RI 92-19

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of 
Management and Budget a request for review of a revised information 
collection. RI 92-19, Application for Deferred or Postponed Retirement: 
Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), is used by separated 
employees to apply for either a deferred or a postponed FERS annuity 
benefit.
    Comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the 
Office of Personnel Management, and whether it will have practical 
utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection 
of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and 
methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use 
of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.
    Approximately 1,272 forms are completed annually. We estimate it 
takes approximately 60 minutes to complete the form. The annual 
estimated burden is 1,272 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Jim Farron on (202) 418-3208, 
or E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#563c3b3037242439381639263b78313920"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5b31363d3a292934351b342b36753c342d">[email protected]</span></a>.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before June 
26, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to John Crawford, Chief, FERS 
Division, Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S. Office of Personnel 
Management, 1900 E Street, NW, Room 3313, Washington, DC 20415.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION CONTACT: Mary 
Beth Smith-Toomey, Budget & Administrative Services Division, (202) 
606-0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Janice R. Lachance,
Director.
[FR Doc. 98-11020 Filed 4-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Honorable John W. CrudlnEton county Auditor potter county Amarillo, Texas Dear Sir:

, requesting the ove question Lhas

been oertain fundshas been exssioners'Court in certain d in aonferring this authors named the character of the securities y be invested. The Commissioners* Court power and unless the authoritg to inis conferredby law, the court is.wfthinvestment. Howard vs. Henderson County, allacs vs. Commisslonersf Court of Hadieon co., 15 9. w. (2d) 536. No authority has been conferredupon Conmkssioners~Courts to invest themoney in the .7oadand Bridge fund and therefore the court is without power to invest such funds in Defense Bonds or in any other securities.

We thinkyour question has been answered by the Attorney

### 286

Honorable John Pd.Crudington,pqe #2

General in OpinionsRos. 04906 and O-5223, and we are en**closbg** copies of these opinions. APPROt=JiD~~3, 1943 very 'trulyyours /g/&&g--J ATTORM GENSRAL OF TEXBS

. ATTCREX GENERALOF TEXAS 8s /h-+@L C. F. Gibson Assistant Cpo-S Encls.
|                                                                   
|-------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                   
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                     
|View History: Annual                                               
|View History: Annual                                               
|View History:                                                      
|                                                                   
|Washington Natural Gas % of Total Residential Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                   
|                                                                   
|Washington Natural Gas % of Total Residential Deliveries  (Percent)
|                                                                   

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        | 1.08   | 1.10   | 1.09   | 1.20   | 1.24   | 1.37   | 1.52  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1.44   | 1.77   | 1.50   | 1.40   | 1.46   | 1.53   | 1.73   | 1.70   | 1.73   | 1.76  
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 1.58   | 1.81   | 1.93   | 1.70   | 1.55   | 1.56   | 1.76   | 2.06   | 1.67   | 1.79  
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 1.87   | 1.90   | 1.89   |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Can you please let me know the outcome of your 2:30 meeting? Thanks.

Lydia Wegman to: dmancini, Heidi King 01/19/2010 04:05 PM

Bcc: Tricia Crabtree
Vri( of Mandamus Denied, Opinion issued November 6, 2012

in The 

## uitrt uf ;piah iftI! Thitrirt 

## uf xa 

## at 1alla No. 05-12-01426-CV
IN RE AFTERMATh, INC., Relator Original Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 12-04971 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Befi)re Justices Moseley, FitzGerald, and Myers 

### Opinion by Justice Myers Relator contends the trialjudge erredby granting real parties in interest’s motion to compel. The facts and issues arewellknown to theparties, so we need notrecountthemherein. We conclude relator’s petition does not satisfy the requirements ofthe Texas Rules ofAppellate Procedure. See TEx. R. App. P. 52.3(j); In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY relator’s petition for writ ofmandamus.

LANA JUSTICE 12 l426F.P05
#### Billy T. DAUGHERTY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

CASE NO. 1D17-3106

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Opinion filed August 24, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus— Original Jurisdiction.

Denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1213 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                        Calendar No. 39
112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1213

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 4, 2011

                     Received; read the first time

                              May 5, 2011

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To repeal mandatory funding provided to States in the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act to establish American Health Benefit 
                               Exchanges.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. REPEALING MANDATORY FUNDING TO STATES TO ESTABLISH AMERICAN 
              HEALTH BENEFIT EXCHANGES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1311(a) of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 13031(a)) is repealed.
    (b) Rescission of Unobligated Funds.--Of the funds made available 
under such section 1311(a), the unobligated balance is rescinded.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 3, 2011.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                                        Calendar No. 39

112th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1213

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To repeal mandatory funding provided to States in the Patient 
Protection and Affordable Care Act to establish American Health Benefit 
                               Exchanges.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 5, 2011

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
059P17

#### Southern Shores Realty Services, Inc. v. William G. Miller, The Miller Family Limited Partnership, II, LLC, Old Glory III, LLC, Old Glory IV, LLC, Old Glory V, LLC, Old Glory VI, LLC, Old Glory VII, LLC, Old Glory IX, LLC, Old Glory XI, LLC, Old Glory XII, LLC, Old Glory XIII,LLC

1. Defs’ PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA16-557)

2. Pit’s Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Denied

2. Dismissed as moot
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
<CIK>     0000064500
<NAME>    SKLAR CORPORATION
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          48,153
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,113,952
<ALLOWANCES>                                    80,803
<INVENTORY>                                  3,165,974
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,449,109
<PP&E>                                       1,389,755
<DEPRECIATION>                                 737,992
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,196,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        4,214,606
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        248
<COMMON>                                       123,771
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,353,377
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,196,155
<SALES>                                      3,233,462
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,233,462
<CGS>                                        1,839,840
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,138,451
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,052
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,959
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,896
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,063
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,063
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (0.05)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2



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



In connection with the Annual Report of Towerstream Corporation, (the ‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ‘‘Report’’), I, Frederick Larcombe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| |  | (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 results of operations of the Company.



Date: April 28, 2017



| | /s/ Frederick Larcombe                                                                                  
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Frederick LarcombeChief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
Opinion issued April 21, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-22-00101-CR

———————————

IN RE ROBERT GLENN DAVIS, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
2

Relator, Robert Glenn Davis, has filed another petition for writ of mandamus1

challenging the trial court’s refusal to respond to relator’s request pursuant to the Texas 

Open Records Act.2

As stated in our previous opinions, relator has not established that he is entitled to 

mandamus relief. Section 552.028 states that “a governmental body is not required to 

accept or comply with a request for information from . . . an individual who is imprisoned 

or confined in a correctional facility . . . .” TEX. GOV’T CODE § 552.028. Documents 

attached to relator’s petition indicate that he is an inmate in the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice. Accordingly, the trial court had no duty to rule on relator’s request for 

information.

We deny the petition. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Guerra.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

1 Relator has filed three previous petitions for writ of mandamus raising exactly the same 

complaint, which were all denied. See In re Davis, No. 01-20-00258-CR, 2020 WL 

1681174 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 7, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In 

re Davis, No. 01-19-00907-CV, 2020 WL 1144673 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 

10, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Davis, No. 01-19-00246-CV, 2019 WL 

2292633 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 30, 2019, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 

2 The underlying case is State v. Robert Glenn Davis, cause number 903461, pending in 

the 184th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Abigail Anastasio

presiding.
L AW O FFICES 

# G AROFALO 

# G OERLICH 

# H AINBACH PC 1200 N EW H AMPSHIRE A VENUE NW S UITE 590 W

ASHINGTON DC 20036 - 6802 A

ARON A. G OERLICH T ELEPHONE 202 776

- 3970 D IRECT D IAL 202 776

- 3974 F ACSIMILE 202 776

- 3975 AGOERLICH @ GGH - AIRLAW . COM WWW . GGH - AIRLAW . COM February 3, 2014 Ms. Esta Rosenberg Chief, U . S . Carrier Licensing Branch Office of International Aviation U . S . Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue , S . E . Washington, D.C. 20590 Re : Application of Southern Air Inc . (Docket DOT - OST - 2014 - 0014) Dear Ms. Rosenberg: This is to notify the Department that polling of all carriers served with the referenced application has been completed. All carriers expressed no objection t o the application. In view of the planned February 13 start - up date for the codeshare service, Southern A i r woul d be grateful if the requested Statement of A uthorization could be issued at the Department’s earliest convenience. Thank you for your kind attenti on to this matter. Sincerely,
Aaron A. Goerlich Garofalo Goerlich Hainbach PC Counsel for Southern Air Inc . cc: Docket DOT - OST - 2014 - 0014
|                                                                                    
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                    
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                      
|View History: Annual                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                
|View History:                                                                       
|                                                                                    
|Florida Natural Gas Exports (Price) All Countries  (Dollars per Thousand Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                    
|                                                                                    
|Florida Natural Gas Exports (Price) All Countries  (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
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2010's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        | --     | 10.12  | 10.40  | 10.39  | 10.39 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 10.39  | 10.40  | 10.40  |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024
#### Rodney L. JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1764

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed September 19, 2017

3.800 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Donna L. McIntosh, Judge.

AFFIRMED.