alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 09-8630.

#### Napoleon Brown, Petitioner v. California.

559 U.S. 996, 130 S. Ct. 1748,

176 L. Ed. 2d 220,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2302.

March 8, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 5, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00407

- CR

Michael HORNADAY

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 11

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 637583

Honorable Michael Keasler , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

On August 1, 2022, the court reporter responsible for preparing the reporter ’ s record in this appeal filed a notification of late record, stating that the appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the reporter ’ s record.

We, therefore, ORDER appellant to provide written proof to this court within ten days of the date of this order that either (1) the reporter ’ s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter ’ s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter ’ s fee. If appellant fails to respond within th e time provided, appellant ’ s brief will be due within thirty days from the date of this order, and the court will only consider those issues or points raised in appellant ’ s brief that do not require a reporter ’ s record for a decision. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 3 7.3(c).

_________________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

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

court on this 5th day of August, 2022

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5241 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5241

   To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 to allow the 
 Secretary of the Army to extend the period during which the Secretary 
    may provide beach nourishment for a water resources development 
                                project.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2006

 Mr. McIntyre introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 to allow the 
 Secretary of the Army to extend the period during which the Secretary 
    may provide beach nourishment for a water resources development 
                                project.

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

SECTION 1. BEACH NOURISHMENT.

    Section 156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (42 
U.S.C. 1962d-5f) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
        Secretary''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Requests for Extensions.--At the request of a non-Federal 
interest, the Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, may 
extend the period during which the Secretary provides beach nourishment 
for a project under subsection (a) for such additional period as the 
Secretary determines necessary, except that the additional period may 
not exceed 50 years.''.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
(18 U.S.C. SEC. 1350) I, David G. Fiore, President and Chief Executive Officer of American
Achievement Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that: (1) The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
February 28, 2004 (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 as
of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report. Date: April 12, 2004 /s/ DAVID G. FIOREName:
    David G. FioreTitle:
    President and Chief Executive Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 178 (Friday, September 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 56680]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22290]

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

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List; Proposed Addition and Deletions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed Addition to and Deletions from the Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to add a service to the Procurement 
List that will be provided by a nonprofit agency employing persons who 
are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes services 
previously provided by such agencies.

DATES: Comments Must Be Received On Or Before: 10/14/2013.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia 22202-
4149.

For Further Information Or to Submit Comments Contact: Barry S. 
Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email 
CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 
U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide 
interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed 
actions.

Addition

    If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entity of the 
Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to 
provide the service listed below from the nonprofit agency employing 
persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
    The following service is proposed for addition to the Procurement 
List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:

Service

Service Type/Location: Custodial Service, GSA, PBS, Region 2, 
Department of State/Passport Office, Minillas North Tower, 9th 
Floor, De Diego Ave. Parada 22, Santurce, PR.
NPA: The Corporate Source, Inc., New York, NY.
Contracting Activity: GSA/Public Buildings Service, Hato Rey, PR.

Deletions

    The following services are proposed for deletion from the 
Procurement List:

Services

Service Type/Location: Janitorial/Custodial Service, Frank T. Bow 
Federal Building, 201 Cleveland Avenue SE., Canton, OH.
NPA: The Workshops, Inc., Canton, OH.
Contracting Activity: GSA/Public Buildings Service, Property 
Management Service Center, Chicago, IL.

Service Type/Location: Janitorial/Custodial Service, Gamelin USARC, 
10 Asylum Road, Bristol, RI.
NPA: Road to Responsibility, Inc., Marshfield, MA.
Contracting Activity: Dept. of the Army, W6QM MICC-FT DIX (RC-E), FT 
DIX, NJ.

Barry S. Lineback,
Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-22290 Filed 9-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00358-CV

Lynn Sheen, Appellant

v.

Nicholas Sheen, Appellee

FROM THE 419TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-FM-16-002867, THE HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

The panel denied Appellant’s motion for rehearing in this case on 

September 18, 2019, and the Court denied her motion for en banc reconsideration on 

November 5, 2019. However, on December 2, 2019, Appellant informed this Court that she filed 

a bankruptcy petition on November 4, 2019. The filing of a bankruptcy petition operates as a 

stay of any judicial proceeding against the debtor. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). “[A]ction taken in 

violation of the automatic stay is void,” York v. State, 373 S.W.3d 32, 38 (Tex. 2012) (quoting 

Continental Casing Corp. v. Samedan Oil Corp., 751 S.W.2d 499, 501 (Tex. 1988)), regardless 

of whether “the court in which the stayed action is filed learns of the bankruptcy prior to taking 

action against the debtor,” Adeleye v. Driscal, 488 S.W.3d 498, 499 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2016, no pet.). This Court’s November 5, 2019 ruling on Appellant’s motion for en banc 
2

reconsideration is therefore void. Now that the bankruptcy court has lifted the stay, we deny her 

motion for en banc reconsideration.

It is so ordered on March 10, 2020.

Before Chief Justice Rose and Justices Goodwin, Baker, Kelly, and Smith

 Justice Triana not participating
## NO. 12

- 20

- 00225

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF TH E ESTATE

OF CHARLES LYNVILLE STOKES,

DECEASED §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION P

ER CURIAM

T his appeal is being di smissed f or fai lure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

P rocedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).

O n September 23 , th e Clerk of this Court notified Appellant s , Tammie J. Williams and
Theresa S. Carney, that the notic e of appeal failed to co ntain the information specifically required by Texas Rule of Appellate P rocedure 25.1(d) and Section 51

. 017 (a) of the Texas Civil

Practice and Remedies Code

. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 25.1(d) ( contents of notice ) ; see also T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R E M

. C ODE A NN

. § 51

. 017 (a) (West Supp. 2019) (notice of appeal m ust be served
on each court reporter responsible f or preparing reporter ’ s record). The notice warned that,

unless Appellants filed a proper notice of appeal on or bef ore October 5 , the appeal would be

referred to the Court for dismissal. This deadline pass ed and Appellant s ha ve not filed a compliant not ice of appeal or otherwise responded to this Court ’ s September 23 notice.
Because Ap pellant s failed, after notice, t o comply with Rule 25.1(d) and Secti on

5 1.017(a)

, the appeal is dismissed

. Se e T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c) (on its own initiative aft er giving
ten days ’ notice to all parties, appellate court may dismiss appeal if appeal i s subject to dismissal
because appell ant failed to com ply with a requirement of these rules, a court order, or a notice
from the clerk requiring a response or other ac tion within a specified time)

.

1 T he notice of appeal and docket sheet both contain language attempting to classify this proceeding as an original proceeding. However, a mandamus proceeding is initiated by filing a petition with the a ppellate court clerk. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1.2 Opinion delivered October 14, 2020. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.3 

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPE ALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

OCTOBER 14 , 2020

NO. 12

- 20

- 00225

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CHARLES LYNVILLE STOKES, DECEASED

Appeal from the County Court at Law

of Nacogdoches C ounty, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. PB19

- 13049 )

THIS CAUSE came to be heard o n the appellat e record; and the same being

considered , it is the opi nion of this Court that this appeal should be d ismissed

. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED an d DECREED b y this Court that the appeal be , and the same is, hereby dismissed ; and that this de cision be certified to the court

below for observanc e. By per curiam opinion

. Panel co nsisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
EXHIBIT
      32




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350)








Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
      the
      registrant certifies, to the best of his knowledge, that the registrant's
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006 (the "Form
      10-QSB") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form
      10-QSB, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and
      results of operations of the registrant.





Date:
      November 14, 2006





Amanasu
      Technologies Corporation





/s/
      Hideyuki Shiraishi





Hideyuki
      Shiraishi


CEO,
      CFO,
      CAO
Exhibit 10.90  


[H
C Crown, LLC Letterhead] 


February 15,
2011 


Crown
Media Holdings, Inc.

12700 Ventura Blvd.

Studio City, CA 91302 

 






 



					
	Attention:	 	Michael Harmon, Interim Chief Financial Officer

Charles Stanford, General Counsel




 

 
	Re:
	Credit
Agreement, dated as of June 29, 2010 among Crown Media Holdings, Inc.as Borrower ("Crown") and H C Crown, LLC (f/k/a H C Crown
Corp.), as Lender ("HCC") and other Credit Parties thereto ("Credit Agreement") 




Gentlemen:



        In
addition to the deductions provided in the definition of "Excess Cash Flow" in the Credit Agreement, HCC hereby consents to Crown deducting the following for purposes of calculating
its Excess Cash Flow pursuant to the Credit Agreement: 


          (i)  all
interest and principal paid pursuant to the Credit Agreement that is not otherwise captured in (a) or (e) of the definition of "Excess Cash Flow,"
(ii) all payments for debt restructuring costs under a troubled debt restructuring that are shown in the "Cash Flow from Financing Activities" section of Crown's Consolidated Statement of Cash
Flows. 


        This
Consent shall be effective for all future calculations of "Excess Cash Flow" required pursuant to the Credit Agreement. 

 






 



			
	 	 	Sincerely,
	 	 	 
	

 	
 	
H C CROWN, LLC
	 	 	 
	

 	
 	
/s/ TIMOTHY GRIFFITH






  Timothy Griffith
 Vice President
UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 01-2095
M A RK W. B RE EDEN , A PP EL L ANT ,
V
. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

Be fore KRAMER, Chief Judge , and F ARL EY and I VERS, J ud ge s. O R D E R On Dec ember

14, 2001, the appe lla n t fi l ed a Notice of Appe al as to an Aug ust 27, 2001, decision of the Boa

rd of Veter ans' Appea ls (B VA) that remande d the appe llant's c laim for ser vice connec tion for post-traumatic stress disorder t o a VA regiona l office for f urther de velopment and rea djudication. On J anuar y 17, 2002, the Secre tary filed a motion to dismiss the appea l; he argues t h a tt h e A u g u s t2 0 0 1 B V A r e m a n d i s n o ta f i n a l d e c i s i o n o v e r w h i c h t h e C o u rth a s j u r i s d i c t i o n . In a Mar ch 6, 2002, response , the appe llant arg ues that the B VA re mand did constitute a final de cision as to ce rtain aspe cts of the a ppellant' s claim. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) , in order for a claimant to obta in r eview of a BV A decision by this Court, that decision must be final. See W illiams v. Principi , 275 F.3d 1361 ( Fe d. Cir. 2002) (discussing rule of f inality and exceptions there to).
On J une 18, 2002, the Sec reta ry filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a re sponse to the ap p e ll a n t' s M a r c h 6 , 2 0 0 2 , r e s p o n s e . O n Ju n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 2 , th e a p p e ll a n t s u

b mi tt e d an u n o p p o s ed motion for leave to file a supplementa l response to the Sec reta ry ' s J anuar

y 17, 2002, motion. Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is
OR DE RED tha

t th e a pp e lla nt' s June 19 , 20 02 , mot ion is a c c e pte d fo r fi lin g a s of the date it was submitted and that the pa rties' J une 18 and 19, 2002, motions for l ea v e t o file re sponses are g rante d. I t is further ORDERED that, not later tha n 3 0 d ay s af

t er the date of this orde r, the a ppellant and the Secre tary file their r esponses a

nd in cl u d e analy sis reg ardingthe applica bility to this case of the finality exceptions discussed in W illiams , su pra . DA TE D: July

9, 20 02 PER CU RI AM

.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 7221** 

ISMAEL R. CRUZ , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. MICHAEL MCCALL , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Anderson
. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 8:13

- cv - 00658

- DCN )

Submitted : November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Jeremy A. Thompson, LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY A. THOMPSON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Ismael R. Cruz seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The o rder is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U. S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Cruz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap pealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 March 25, 2015

Order 

Clerk

March 25, 2015

148927

MATTHEW HELTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 148927

v COA: 314857

Oakland CC Family Division: 

 2012-798218-DP

LISA MARIE BEAMAN and DOUGLAS

BEAMAN,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

By order of the Chief Justice, the defendants-appellees, having failed to file a brief 

on appeal in contravention of the order granting leave to appeal and MCR 7.309(B)(2) for 

the stated reason that counsel, who appeared on their behalf in the Court of Appeals, was 

not compensated to represent them in this Court, forfeit the right to oral argument when 

the case is heard at the April 2015 session of the Court. MCR 7.309(B)(3). In light of 

that forfeiture, the time allotted to plaintiff-appellant for oral argument shall be limited to 

fifteen minutes. MCR 7.315(B).
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 47 (Thursday, March 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10801-10802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5284]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Third Plenary Meeting, NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of the NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 7, 2009 starting at 9 a.m. to 12 
p.m. Arrive in FAA Lobby at 8:30 a.m. for visitor check in.

ADDRESSES: FAA Auditorium, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., 
Suite 850, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice 
is hereby given for a NextGen Mid-Term Implementation Task Force 
meeting. The agenda will include:
    <bullet> Opening Plenary (Welcome and Introductions)
    <bullet> Work Group and Subgroup Status Reports and Planned 
Activities
    <bullet> Discussion and Next Steps
    <bullet> Closing Plenary (Other Business, Document Production, Date 
and Place of Next Meeting, Adjourn)
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may 
present a written statement to the committee at any time.


[[Page 10802]]


    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 5, 2009.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
 [FR Doc. E9-5284 Filed 3-11-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
exv10w2w86








Exhibit 10.2.86




SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE

MIRANT SERVICES SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFIT (PENSION) PLAN





     WHEREAS, Mirant Services, LLC (“Company”) has adopted the Mirant Services Supplemental Benefit
(Pension) Plan, as most recently amended and restated, effective as of January 1, 2009 (“Plan”);
and



     WHEREAS, the Mirant Benefits Committee (“Committee”) is authorized pursuant to Section 6.2 of
the Plan to amend the Plan at any time, provided the amendment to the Plan does not involve a
substantial increase in cost to the Company or any United States subsidiary or affiliate of the
Mirant Corporation which also has adopted this Plan;



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Committee hereby amends the Plan as follows effective January 1, 2010:



1.




     A new subparagraph (iv) is hereby added to Section 5.2(a) as follows:




	 	“(iv)	 	 The Committee, in its discretion, may elect to take FICA Taxes into account on
any date or dates prior to the Resolution Date but no earlier than the date
described in the following sentence. The earliest date FICA Taxes can be taken
into account is the later of (i) the date on which services are rendered which
creates the Pension Benefit subject to the FICA Tax or (ii) the date on which the
right to the Pension Benefit is no longer subject to a substantial risk of
forfeiture. (See Treasury Regulation Section 31.3121(v)(2)-1(e)(4)(ii) or its
successor.)”





*******************




     Except as amended herein by this Second Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force and
effect as amended and restated by the Company prior to the adoption of this Second Amendment.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Committee through a duly authorized officer of the Company has adopted
this Second Amendment to the Plan on this 3rd day of December, 2010, to be effective as of the date
listed above.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	MIRANT SERVICES, LLC

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Kevin P. Boudreaux
 	 
	 	 	Kevin P. Boudreaux 	 
	 	 	Vice President, Administration