alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered October 18, 2019

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01066

- CV

SHELLY MARIE TRIGG, Appellant

V.

CHRISTOPHER D UNBAR, AS TRUSTEE OF THE

CHRIS AND PAIGE DUNBAR FAMILY TRUST

, Appellee

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 401

- 01748

- 2019



### O RDER

Before the Court is appellant’s October 16, 2019 motion for an extension of time to file a

brief. Appellant filed a supplemental motion to update the certificate of conference to reflect the

motion is unopposed. We GRANT the motion and extend the time to November 18, 2019 . We

caution appellant that further extension requests in this accelerated appeal will be disfavored.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
# Troop Support employees celebrate Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy 

/ Published Jan. 19, 2023
PHILADELPHIA
Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support employees celebrated the legacy of civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., during an event held on Jan. 17. 

“Today we remember a great man and leader," said Brig. Gen. Eric Shirley, Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support commander. "Our Nation sets aside this day to recall the ethical and social advancements in our society that were spurred by one man in particular.” 

Before the visual presentation, Shirley recalled his personal support for Dr. King. 

“As a young man of 19-years-old, my adoptive father, who was always educating me, took me on a march in Eloy, Ariz. in January 1990," said Shirley. “The purpose of that march was to seek a day of state-level observance honoring Dr. King.” 

Theresa Williams of Key Arts Production took the stage soon after and took attendees on a journey through the life of Dr. King.  

Key Arts Production is a multimedia production firm dedicated to providing unique and innovative live presentations that engage and entertain audiences of all ages.  

The presentation of “King’s Dream,” gave a look into his overall life but focused on the turbulent 1960s. 

Attendees were informed of King winning the 1964 Nobel Peace Prize and Time Magazine’s Man of the Year.  

Williams quoted many of Dr. King’s speeches, including his final one in April 1968, “And I’ve seen the Promised Land," she recited: “I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land.” 

After the event ended, performers and those in attendance engaged in conversation on the impact of the event. 

DLA Troop Support Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity and Naval Supply Systems Command Weapons Systems Support Equal Employment Opportunity Advisory Committees hosted the event. 

“As Dr. King had a dream, this event brought forth a meaningful experience that brings people together as responsible citizens in the global community,” said Shirley.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 117 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33364-33365]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16193]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-243-000]


Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company; Notice of Reconciliation 
Report

June 12, 1998.
    Take notice that on June 5, 1998, Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line 
Company (Panhandle) tendered for filing its final reconciliation report 
in compliance with Article I, Section 3(d)(ii) of the April 18, 1996 
Stipulation and Agreement in Docket No. RP95-411-000 (Settlement). The 
Settlement required the filing of a reconciliation report as soon as 
practicable following the termination of the Second Firm GSR Settlement 
Rates.
    Panhandle states that it filed in Docket No. RP98-146-000 on 
February 27, 1998, to suspend the Second GSR Settlement Reservation 
Surcharge for firm transportation services provided under Rate 
Schedules FT, EFT and LFT and the Second GSR Settlement Volumetric 
Surcharge for service provided under Rate Schedule SCT effective April 
1, 1998. Panhandle's February 27, 1998 filing was approved by 
Commission letter order issued March 27, 1998.
    Panhandle states that copies of its filing are being served on all 
affected customers and applicable state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before June 19, 1998. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to 
make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies

[[Page 33365]]

of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16193 Filed 6-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jonathan Bird, Appellant.

[59 NYS3d 431]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sullivan, J.), rendered April 25, 2016, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a brief in accordance with *Anders v California*(386 US 738 [1967]), in which he moves for leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant.

Ordered that the motion of Thomas J. Butler for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted, and he is directed to turn over all papers in his possession to the new counsel assigned herein; and it is further,

Ordered that Mark Diamond, Esq., Box 287356, Yorkville Station, New York, NY, 10128, is assigned as counsel to perfect the appeal; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is directed to furnish a copy of the certified transcript of the proceedings to the appellant’s new assigned counsel; and it is further,

Ordered that new counsel shall serve and file a brief on behalf of the appellant within 90 days of this decision and order on motion, and the respondent shall serve and file its brief within 30 days after the brief on behalf of the appellant is served and filed. By prior decision and order on motion of this Court dated June 21, 2016, the appellant was granted leave to prosecute the appeal as a poor person, with the appeal to be heard on the original papers (including a certified transcript of the proceedings) and on the briefs of the parties, who were directed to file nine copies of their respective briefs and to serve one copy on each other.

While we are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by assigned counsel, upon our independent review of the record, we conclude that there are nonfrivolous issues in this case, including, but not necessarily limited to, whether the defendant’s plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, and whether the defendant was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel with respect to the plea *(see People v Wolfolk,*128 AD3d 991, 992 [2015]; *People v Johnson,*51 AD3d 689, 690 [2008]), the propriety of the sup*786pression ruling *(see People v Carlos,*126 AD3d 911 [2015]; *People v Frazier,*124 AD3d 909 [2015]; *People v Hardman,*110 AD3d 917 [2013]), and whether the sentence imposed upon the conviction of assault in the second degree was excessive *(see generally People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Accordingly, assignment of new counsel is warranted *(see People v Stokes,*95 NY2d 633, 638 [2001]; *Matter of Giovanni S. [Jasmin A.],*89 AD3d 252 [2011]).

Dillon, J.P., Austin, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2098 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2098

 To amend section 217 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
 that military moving expense reimbursements are excluded from income 
    without regard to the deductibility of the expenses reimbursed.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 10 (legislative day, May 2), 1994

  Mr. Gramm (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Lott, Mr. Shelby, and Mrs. 
  Hutchison) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 217 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
 that military moving expense reimbursements are excluded from income 
    without regard to the deductibility of the expenses reimbursed.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION FROM INCOME OF MILITARY MOVING EXPENSE 
              REIMBURSEMENTS.

    (a) In General.--Section 217(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to the definition of moving expenses) is amended by 
striking ``For'' and inserting ``Except as provided in subsection 
(g)(2), for''.
    (b) Exclusion.--Section 217(g)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to rules for deducting moving expenses for members of 
the Armed Forces) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(2) any moving and storage expenses--
                    ``(A) which are furnished in kind, or
                    ``(B) for which reimbursement or an allowance is 
                provided, but only to the extent of the expenses paid 
                or incurred,
        to such member, the member's spouse, or the member's 
        dependents, shall not be includible in gross income, without 
        regard to whether the expenses reimbursed would otherwise be 
        deductible under this section, and''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall apply to expenses incurred 
after December 31, 1993.

                                 <all>
```
No. 10-5306.

#### Rufino Osorio, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections.

562 U.S. 914, 131 S. Ct. 274,

178 L. Ed. 2d 181,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7128.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
#### Cornell v. State

DA 16-0466

06/06/17

2017 MT 138N

Affirmed

Dist. 4 (Missoula)
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration StatementsNo. 333-140080, 333-139500 and 333-157602 on Form S-3 andRegistration Statements No. 333-152639, 333-134512, 333-97903, 333-91458,333-62404, and 333-55438 on Form S-8 of our reports dated March 13,2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements of CoBiz Financial Inc.and Subsidiaries, and the effectiveness of CoBiz Financial Inc. andSubsidiaries’ internal control over financial reporting, appearing in thisAnnual Report on Form 10-K of CoBiz Financial Inc. and Subsidiaries forthe year ended December 31, 2008.

 

 

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Denver, ColoradoMarch 13, 2009

 

----
Exhibit No. 32.2

Certification of CFO 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 DRS Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard A. Schneider, Chief Financial Officer of DRS Technologies, Inc., 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:



|/s/RICHARD A. SCHNEIDERRichard A. Schneider Chief Financial
OfficerJune 13, 2005 |  | 
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

A
SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO DRS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY DRS
TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

---



QuickLinks
NO. 08-21-00142-CR

JOSE DEMETRIO PINEDA * IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

 APPELLANT * 

 * 

V. * 8TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 * 

 * 

STATE OF TEXAS * AT EL PASO, TEXAS

APPELLEE

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE 

Please enter the appearance of Susannah E. Prucka as an attorney for the State of Texas in 

this case. 

Dated: November 3, 2021 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 AMANDA NAVARETTE 

District Attorney

Winkler and Crane Counties

/s/Susannah E. Prucka 

SUSANNAH E. PRUCKA

Special Prosecutor

State Bar No. 24076105 

susannahprucka@gmail.com 

PO Box 1041 

Kermit, Texas 79745 

432.586.3700 

432.586.3208 fax 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct of the foregoing document was sent on November 

3, 2021, by transmission through the authorized electronic filing manager or as otherwise 

permitted by law to Michele Greene., the attorney of record for Appellant. 

 /s/Susannah E. Prucka 

SUSANNAH E. PRUCKA

ACCEPTED

08-21-00142-CR

EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS

EL PASO, TEXAS

11/3/2021 10:46 AM

ELIZABETH G. FLORES

CLERK

08-21-00142-CR

 FILED IN 8th COURT OF APPEALS EL PASO, TEXAS 11/3/2021 10:46:45 AM ELIZABETH G. FLORES Clerk
Automated Certificate of eService

This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.

The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system

on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing

certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a

certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Susannah Prucka on behalf of Susannah Prucka

Bar No. 24076105

susannahprucka@gmail.com

Envelope ID: 58810279

Status as of 11/3/2021 2:27 PM MST

Case Contacts

Name

M. Michele Greene

BarNumber

789966

Email

mmg@michelegreenelaw.com

TimestampSubmitted

11/3/2021 10:46:45 AM

Status

SENT
No. 10-6247.

#### Harry Guzman, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 972, 131 S. Ct. 487,

178 L. Ed. 2d 308,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8049.

October 12, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

Same case below, 603 F.3d 99.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2395 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 2395

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the United States Courthouse in Detroit, Michigan, as the 
         ``Theodore Levin Courthouse'', and for other purposes.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2395

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the United States Courthouse in Detroit, Michigan, as the 
         ``Theodore Levin Courthouse'', and for other purposes.

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

SECTION. 1. THEODORE LEVIN FEDERAL BUILDING AND COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Redesignation.--The courthouse facility located at 231 West 
Lafayette, in Detroit, Michigan, shall be known and designated as the 
``Theodore Levin Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the courthouse facility 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Theodore Levin Courthouse''.

            Passed the Senate September 30 (legislative day, September 
      12), 1994.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
```
jEo srqr

~

s 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

o Q WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

2 ~ 

"1

0 

~~TqG PR01<-' 

AUG - 4 2009 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

David Moody, Ph.D. 

Manager, Carlsbad Field Office 

U.S. Department of Energy 

P.O. Box 3090 

Carlsbad, NM 88221-3090 

Dear Dr. Moody: 

On March 9, 2009 the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) 

requested the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approval of the Nondestructive 

Assay Box Counter (NABC), non-destructive assay (NDA) system for contact-handled (CH) 

transuranic (TRU) waste used by the Central Characterization Project (CCP) at the Savannah 

River Site (SRS). 

In the baseline inspection report (Docket no. A-98-49;11-A4-64), EPA identified the 

addition of a new NDA system as a Tier 1 change, which requires EPA approval prior to 

implementation. According to the requirements of 40 CFR 194.8 (b), DOE requested approval 

of the NABC for CH TRU waste as a Tier 1 change to the SRS-CCP CH baseline approval. 

EPA conducted an on-site evaluation of the SRS-CCP NABC system on March 24-26, 

2009. EPA's inspection of the NABC included an examination of the procedures, a review of the 

calibration records, a demonstration of the NABC, replicate measurements run at EPA's request, 

and an examination of Batch Data Reports for the NABC. EPA's inspection identified a concern 

that required a response related to the use of the NABC for the characterization of CH TRU 

waste. CBFO subsequently provided a revised calibration report that fully addressed the concern. 

EPA's inspection report for the NABC is enelosed and will be placed in the Agency's public 

dockct. 

EPA has detenmined that the NABC system used by SRS-CCP is adequate for the 

characterization of CH TRU waste at SRS-CCP. This approval does not make any changes to the 

tiering table provided with the baseline approval. Changes to the approved components of the 

NABC system at SRS-CCP must follow the tiering requirements*described in the baseline 

inspection report issued for the SRS-CCP CH TRU program. 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Basetl Inks on 100°/, Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycted Paper 
Sincerely 

Director 

iation Protection Division 

If you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact Ed Feltcoi -n at 

(202) 343-9422 or Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462. 

Enclosure 

cc: Electronic Distribution 

Vernon Daub, CBFO 

Ava Holland, CBFO 

Casey Gadbury, CBFO 

Courtland Fesmire, CBFO 

Norma Castaneda, CBFO 

Martin Navarrete, CBFO 

Dennis Miehls, CBFO 

Allison Pangle, CTAC 

Wayne Ledford, CTAC 

Steve Zappe, NMED 

Site Documents
No. 12-6342.

#### Martinez-Flores *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### United Water New Rochelle, Inc., Respondent, v Planning Board of Town of Eastchester et al., Appellants. (Matter No. 1.) In the Matter of United Water New Rochelle, Inc., respondent, v Planning Board of Town of Eastchester et al., Appellants. (Matter No. 2.)

[768 NYS2d 612]

In an action for a judgment declaring that the site plan application of United Water New Rochelle, Inc., dated March 7, 1994, was deemed approved by operation of the Zoning Law of the Town of Eastchester, and a related proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the appellant Planning Board of the Town of Eastchester dated May 30, 2001, rescinding a negative declaration it issued on November 20, 1995, the appeals are from (1) an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), dated December 2, 2002, entered in the action, which granted the motion of United Water New Rochelle, Inc., for summary judgment, denied the appellants’ cross motion for summary judgment, and declared that the site plan application of United Water New Rochelle, Inc., dated March 7, 1994, was approved by operation of the Zoning Law of the Town of Eastchester, and (2) a judgment of the same court also dated December 2, 2002, entered in the proceeding, which granted the petition and annulled the determination of the Planning Board of the Town of Eastchester dated May 30, 2001, rescinding the negative declaration it issued on November 20, 1995.

*628Ordered that the order and judgment and the judgment are affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the site plan application of United Water New Rochelle, Inc., dated March 7, 1994, was deemed approved by operation of the Zoning Law of the Town of Eastchester since the Planning Board of the Town of Eastchester (hereinafter the Board) failed to render a determination on the application within the time prescribed by the Zoning Law of the Town of Eastchester *(see*Zoning Law of Town of Eastchester § 11 [G] [3], formerly § 10 [H] [3]; *Matter of Twin Lakes Farms Assoc. v Town Clerk of Town of Bedford,*215 AD2d 667 [1995]; *Matter of Biondi v Rocco,*173 AD2d 700, 702 [1991]; *cf. Matter of King v Chmielewski,*76 NY2d 182, 187-188 [1990]; *Matter of Sun Beach Real Estate Dev. Corp. v Anderson,*98 AD2d 367, 369 [1983], *affd on op below*62 NY2d 965 [1984]).

Since the application was deemed approved as a matter of law, the Board’s determination dated May 30, 2001, rescinding the negative declaration it issued on November 20, 1995, was improper *(see*6 NYCRR 617.7 [f] [1]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition and annulled the determination.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. McGinity, J.P., H. Miller, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.1


         Certification of Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of
             Earth Sciences, Inc. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350


     I, Mark H. McKinnies, certify that:

     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Earth Sciences, Inc.
(the "Company) for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mark H.
McKinnies, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
to the best of my knowledge, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


                                                 /s/ Mark H. McKinnies
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Name:  Mark H. McKinnies
                                                 Title:  President and Treasurer
Date:  August 19, 2003
EXHIBIT 32.1CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002The undersigned officer of Veridien Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies to my knowledgethat the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the on date hereof, fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification isprovided solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed to be part of the Report or “filed” for anypurpose whatsoever.     Date: August 15, 2005 Name: /s/ Sheldon C. Fenton              Sheldon C. Fenton  Title: Chief Executive Officer