alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NICHOLAS “NICO” LAHOOD

Criminal District Attorney

Bexar County, Texas 

August 13, 2015 

 

Honorable Abel Acosta, Clerk of the Court 

Court of Criminal Appeals 

P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

RE: Matthew Douglas Hayes v. The State of Texas 

 Cause No’s 04-14-00878-CR, 04-14-00879-CR 

Dear Mr. Acosta: 

The State has received a copy of the Petition for Discretionary Review filed by the 

Appellant in this matter. The State waives its right to respond to the Petition for 

Discretionary Review. However, if the Court grants the Petition, the State will file a brief 

on the merits. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to call. 

Sincerely yours, 

/s/ Amanda C. Byrd 

AMANDA C. BYRD 

Assistant Criminal District Attorney 

Bexar County, Texas 

Paul Elizondo Tower 

101 W. Nueva 

(210) 335-2157 

S.B.N. 24081811 

cc: Mandy Miller 

 Attorney at Law 

 2910 Commercial Ctr. Blvd 

 Katy, Texas 77494 

 

Attorney for the State 

PD-0885&0886-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 8/13/2015 12:57:35 PM

Accepted 8/17/2015 1:46:30 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (0.97 MB)

Tags:historypage_director

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D2 3

- 2601 Lower Tribunal No. 22

- CA

- 007513

- O

_____________________________ F OREMAN E LECTRIC S ERVICES , I NC

. , Appellant ,

v. LSQ F UNDING G ROUP , L.C. , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County

. Vincent Falcone, III , Judge. June 18, 2024
PER CURIAM

. AFFIRMED

. WHITE, MIZE and BROWNLEE , JJ., c oncur.

Jerome Ramsaran , of Jerome Ramsaran, P.A., Miami , for Appellant

. Emily J. Lang and Kevin D. Fowler , of Foley & Lardner LLP , Orlando , for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v.

VINCENT MARTINEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-30032

D.C. No. 1:97-cr-00037-DLC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2017** 

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

Vincent Martinez appeals from the district court’s order granting in part his

motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

FILED

FEB 27 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Martinez contends that he is entitled to a further sentence reduction under

Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. In light of the nature of Martinez’s

offense and the other 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the district court did

not abuse its discretion by reducing Martinez’s sentence to the high-end of the

amended Guidelines range. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 cmt. n.1(B)(i); United States v.

Dunn, 728 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 2013). Moreover, contrary to Martinez’s

contention, the district court adequately addressed his arguments for a further

reduction and explained its sentencing decision. See United States v. Trujillo, 713

F.3d 1003, 1009, 11 (9th Cir. 2013). 

AFFIRMED.

2 16-30032
No. 11-54.

#### James D. Schneller, Petitioner v. WCAU Channel 10.

565 U.S. 880, 132 S. Ct. 246,

181 L. Ed. 2d 141,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5792.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 413 Fed. Appx. 424.
No. 10-1457.

#### Roger Barnett, Petitioner v. Ana Maria Vicente, et al.

565 U.S. 822, 132 S. Ct. 109,

181 L. Ed. 2d 35,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5632.

October 3, 2011.

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

Same case below, 415 Fed. Appx. 767.
DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019

Change 13

AP8.51-1 APPENDIX 8.51

AP8.51. APPENDIX 8.51

MATERIEL OBLIGATION VALIDATION

REINSTATEMENT REQUEST1

FIELD LEGEND

RECORD

POSITION(S) ENTRY AND INSTRUCTIONS

Document Identifier

Code

1-3 Enter DIC APR.

Routing Identifier Code 4-6 Enter the RIC of the source of supply that 

canceled the requisition.

Other Fields 7-24 Enter the data from the supply status 

transaction (DIC AE_) with Status Code BS.

Quantity 25-29 Enter the quantity required; this quantity 

cannot be greater than the original quantity 

canceled

Other Fields 30-61 Enter the data from supply status 

transaction (DIC AE_) with Status Code BS.

Blank 62-64 Leave blank.

Advice Code 65-66 Enter the advice code from the original 

requisition; otherwise, leave blank.

Blank 67-70 Leave blank.

Transaction Day 71-73 Enter the ordinal day of year of the 

reinstatement request.

Blank 74-80 Leave blank.

1 Established procedures to reinstate canceled requisitions last reported as not implemented by United 

States Navy (USN). Refer to AMCL 150C.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350OF CHAPTER 63**

**OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITEDSTATES CODE**

 

I, David R. Asplund, the Chief Executive Officer ofLime Energy Co., certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge andbelief:

 

1.               TheQuarterly Report Under Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period ended September 30,2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.               Theinformation contained in the Quarterly Report Under Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Periodended September 30, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of Lime Energy Co. and itssubsidiaries.

 

 
| /s/ David R. Asplund    |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| David R. Asplund        |   |
| Chief Executive Officer |   |
| November 8, 2010   |   |

 

----
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLAImages

# DLA Images

Search

Search

                                  - All Images 
                                  - Other 

                                  - Upload Date
                                  - Photo Date
                                  - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (4.35 MB)

Tags:historypage_director

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6789

ROBERT CAMPBELL, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

JEAN SMITH; SHAMYRA MCREA; JOHN BRITT; NEIL MCCLENDON, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Richard M. Gergel, District 

Judge. (0:08-cv-03668-RMG) 

Submitted: September 6, 2011 Decided: September 28, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Robert Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher R. Antley, 

DEVLIN & PARKINSON, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Robert Campbell appeals the district court’s entry of 

judgment for Defendants in accordance with the jury’s verdict. 

Campbell brought suit alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

(2006) and South Carolina law. On appeal, Campbell claims that 

the judgment should be reversed because he was not allowed to 

present certain evidence at trial, the district court committed 

error with respect to certain video evidence, and the court 

erred in failing to admit into evidence the prison incident 

reports authored by Defendants McRea, Britt, and Smith. In his 

informal appellate brief, however, Campbell fails to explain why 

his inability to present certain evidence and the court’s error 

with respect to the video evidence warrant reversal of the 

judgment. Campbell also fails to explain how the district court 

erred in failing to admit into evidence the incident reports

authored by McRea and Britt. Accordingly, we deem these issues 

abandoned. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. 

Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir. 2009). 

Further, an appellant has the burden of including in 

the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceeding 

material to the issues raised on appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 

4th Cir. R. 10(b). Campbell has not provided a transcript of 

the trial and fails to establish a basis to have the transcript 

prepared at government expense. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2006). 
3

By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify for the 

production of a transcript at government expense, Campbell has 

waived review of the issue on appeal that depends on the 

transcript to show error. Powell v. Estelle, 959 F.2d 22, 26 

(5th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); Keller v. Prince George’s Cnty., 

827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). As no error appears on 

the record before us, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 

We deny Campbell’s motion to appoint counsel and dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
No. 10-479.

#### Karl Ernest Hindle, Petitioner v. Sheila Kay Fuith.

562 U.S. 1109, 131 S. Ct. 825,

178 L. Ed. 2d 557,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9770.

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District, denied.

Same case below, 33 So. 3d 782.
# C_2014031EN.01001301.xml

| 1.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/13

---

Action brought on 15 November 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM (FIBRA PROTEÍNAS NUTRIENTES)

(Case T-600/13)

2014/C 31/23

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 11 September 2013 and, consequently, grant Community figurative mark No 11 094 381 for all of the goods in respect of which it is requested in Class 30; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 11 September 2013 and, consequently, grant Community figurative mark No 11 094 381 for all of the goods in respect of which it is requested in Class 30;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, in accordance with Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘FIBRA PROTEÍNAS NUTRIENTES’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark application No 11 094 381

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Application for registration rejected

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

Pleas in law:

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009; and

| — | Infringement of Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009 with regard to the principle of equal treatment and Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 83 of Regulation No 207/2009 with regard to the principle of equal treatment and Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

---
No. 10-11076.

#### Oliver C., Petitioner v. Prince George’s County Department of Social Services.

565 U.S. 865, 132 S. Ct. 211,

181 L. Ed. 2d 114,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6818.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Annual Report of Esterline Technologies Corporation (the
"COMPANY") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 28, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "THE FORM 10-K"),
I, Robert D. George, 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:

     (1)  The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
          78o(d)); and

     (2)  The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

Dated: January 6, 2006


                                        By: /s/ Robert D. George
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Robert D. George
                                            Vice President, Chief Financial
                                            Officer, Secretary and Treasurer
#### *State, Respondent, v. Cargill, Petitioner,*

No. 91769-8.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 71291-8-1, May 4, 2015, 2015,187 187 Wn. App. 1021. *Denied*September 30, 2015.
From:	King.Melanie@epamail.epa.gov
Sent:	Monday, August 09, 2010 9:50 PM
To:	Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov
Cc:	Wayland.Robertj@epamail.epa.gov; Talcott.Fred@epamail.epa.gov; 
horowitz.michael@epamail.epa.gov
Subject:	engine cost info
Attachments:	EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0195.pdf; EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0668 - National 
Impacts.pdf


Cortney, one of the items requested on the call today was information on 
engine costs.  See the far right column in Table 5 of the attached national 
impacts memo.  The information is a little old but gives you a ballpark idea.  
Also attached is another reference we have.
(See attached file: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0195.pdf)(See attached file:
EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0059-0668 - National Impacts.pdf)

Melanie King
Energy Strategies Group
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency

Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC  27711

Phone:  (919) 541-2469
Fax:       (919) 541-5450
king.melanie@epa.gov
No. 10-6215.

#### Elizabeth McCray, Petitioner v. Chrysler LLC.

562 U.S. 1196, 131 S. Ct. 1039,

178 L. Ed. 2d 858,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 691.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 1067, 131 S. Ct. 647, 178 L. Ed. 2d 487, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 9313.
No. 10-6178.

#### Richard Norwood, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1182, 131 S. Ct. 996,

178 L. Ed. 2d 832,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 880.

January 18, 2011.

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

Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 580.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 12, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00896

- CV

Hugo ALANIZ,

Appellant

v.

Jose Maria AGUIRRE, Elias Aguirre Jr., Argelio Aguirre, Jose Guadalupe Aguirre, and Elsa A.

Lara,

Appellee s

From the 381st Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 09

- 71

Honorable Jose Luis Garza, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

We grant appellant’s motion for extension of time and order appellant’s brief

due July 13, 2015 (81 days after the original deadline). Appellant is advised that no

further extensions of time will be granted and the appeal is subject to being dismissed if

the brief is not filed by the date ordered.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have h ereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th day of June, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
No. 10-299.

#### Yumin Zhao, Petitioner v. Lone Star Engine Installation Center, Inc.

562 U.S. 1172, 131 S. Ct. 982,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 563.

178 L. Ed. 2d 811,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 1004, 131 S. Ct. 520, 178 L. Ed. 2d 373, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8593.
**DoD 4000.25-2-M**

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP3.22. APPENDIX 3.22**

**LOGISTICS REASSIGNMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT DATA**

##### 

## 

2

**AP3.22-**

AP3.22-1

APPENDIX 3.22
# C_2014315EN.01005501.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/55

---

Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Lucart France v Commission

(Case T-234/13) (1)

1

((Application for annulment - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 2013/2/EU - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))

2014/C 315/92

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Lucart France (Torvilliers, France) (represented by: J. M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid Nouraï, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J. F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Lucart France is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Lucart France is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.

1

---
# FY10

# FY11

# FY12
**DoD 4000.25-2-M**

*DLM 4000.25, Volume 2, November 26, 2019*

*Change 13*

**AP3.19. APPENDIX 3.19**

**LOGISTICS REASSIGNMENT DELINQUENT DUE-IN RESPONSE**

2

**AP3.19-**

AP3.19-1

APPENDIX 3.19