alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 21

- 00315

- CR

Kip BRENCHLEY

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 5

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 598744

Honorable John Longoria , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios , Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 6, 2021

DIS MISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed by Appellant and his

attorney. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.2(a). Appellant’s motion is granted; this appeal is dismissed. See

id. ; Hypolite v. State , 647 S.W.2d 294, 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) ; Conners v. State , 966 S.W.2d

108, 110 (Tex. App.

— Hou ston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. ref’ d)

.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
#### In the Matter of Attorneys in Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. Lisa Sue Fendell, Admitted on July 17, 1989, at a Term of the Appellate Division, First Department.

[720 NYS2d 779]

Motion granted and respondent reinstated as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof. No opinion. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Saxe, JJ. *[See,*240 AD2d 106.]
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 16 2000 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JERRY KAME, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 99-2275
v. (D.C. No. CIV-99-778-JP) ROBERT PERRY, Secretary of Corrections, New Mexico Department of Corrections; JOHN SHANKS, Director of Adult Prisons, New Mexico Department of Corrections; JEFF SERNA, Interstate Compact Administrator, New Mexico Department of Corrections; and TIM LEMASTER, Warden, New Mexico State Penitentiary, (D. New Mex.)

Defendants - Appellees.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before TACHA , McKAY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

After examining Appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the1 We are dismissing as frivolous the appeal of an action the district court

dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For purposes of § 1915(g), both dismissals count as strikes against plaintiff . See Jennings v. Natrona County Detention Ctr. , 175 F.3d 775, 780 (10th Cir. 1999)

. -2- determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without ora l argument. This is a pro se civil rights appeal. Plaintiff wa s transferred from a New Mexico prison facility to one in Rhode Island. His complaint alleged a variety of abuses committed or encouraged by Rhode Island pris on officials. These claims all relate to prison conditions in Rhode Island. H e seeks damages and injunctive relief from the defendants in this action, all of w hom are New Mexico prison officials. His theory is that they are liable beca use they transferred him to Rhode Island and refused to return him to New Mexico or r emediate his problems after being notified of their existence. The trial court dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim against the New Mexico defendants. W e have reviewed the complaint, its attachments, the trial court’s sua sponte order of dismissal, and the brief on appeal. We conclude that the trial court’ s order correctly characterized the plaintiff’s allegations and correctly dismissed plaintiff’s complaint. We therefore affirm for the reasons given by the trial court and dismiss plaintiff’s appeal as frivolous. 1-3-

AFFIRMED and DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay United States Circuit Judge
---

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

I certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
  to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report
  on Form 10-QSB of Merritt Ventures Corp. for the quarterly period ending June
  30, 2003 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 Quarterly
  Report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial
  condition and results of operations of Merritt Ventures Corp.

|By:    | /s/ Lorrie Ann Archibald
|------ | ------------------------
|       |                         
|Name:  | Lorrie Ann Archibald    
|       |                         
|Title: | Chief Executive Officer 
|       |                         
|Date:  | August 18, 2003         
|       |                         
|       |                         
|       |                         
|       |                         
|By:    | /s/ Gordon F. Burley    
|       |                         
|Name:  | Gordon F. Burley        
|       |                         
|Title: | Chief Financial Officer 
|       |                         
|Date:  | August 18, 2003         

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division 

                    Notice is hereby given that, on February 12, 2009, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Inigral, Inc., San Francisco, CA; and LearnGauge, Okemos, MI have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Cisco Systems, San Antonio, TX has withdrawn as a party to this venture.                 

No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership. 

                    On April 7, 2000, IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on September 13, 2000 (65 FR 55283).                 

                    The last notification was filed with the Department on November 17, 2008. A notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on January 12, 2009 (74 FR 1247).                 

Patricia A. Brink, 

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

 [FR Doc. E9-5269 Filed 3-12-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
No. 09-9323.

#### Jerome Julius Brown, Petitioner v. Howard County Police Department, et al.

559 U.S. 1108, 130 S. Ct. 2406,

176 L. Ed. 2d 927,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3821,

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.

Same case below, 358 Fed. Appx. 186.
# tinitcd

**~tatcs ~cnatc** 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy Administrator Envirornnental ProtectionAgency 1200 PennsylvaniaAvenue NW Room !lOlA Washington, DC 20460 Dear Administrator McCmthy: WASHINGTON, DC 20510

March20, 2015

We write to address the collection ofspecific data gathered bythe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has led to artificially lownational emissions standards for its proposed ClayMACTrule, NESHAP for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing. We strongly urge the EPA to revise the proposed rule using the best available data collection methods. As cunently written, tltis nanowrule disproportionately affects one ofthe largest U.S. manufacturers ofceramic sanitm·yware and clay ceramics with facilities in South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Texas. This rule could lead to significant, burdensome, and unnecessary cost increases for these facilities and ultimately negatively impactjobs and wages in our respective states. 

### Itis our opi1tion that the national emissions baseline in EPA'sproposed rule is grounded on misleadingtest data fi·om a wet scmbber emissions control device installed on a new tUJmel kiln at a manufacturing facility in Spartanburg, South Carolina. The device was installed in 2005 to comply withthe Clay MACTrule that was subsequently vacated by the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the District ofColumbia in 2007. Following the vacancy ofthe Clay MACTrule, the Spartanburg, SC facility permanently shut down the wet scrubber and continued to operate the tl.Jrnlel kiln under the terms ofthe air permit. The Spartanburg facility did not use the control device again until ordered to do so by EPAin August 2010 for the purpose ofcollecting emissions data to determine national emission standards for a new "existing source" Clay MACTrule. The Spartanburg facility-under threat ofan EPA enforcement action-complied with EPA's demands and tt1rned on the idle wet scrubber, which is notrequired by any permit. As a result ofEPA's demand, the scrubberwas operated for approximately one week inAugust 2010 for emissions testing, and then turned offagain. 

### Ithas not been operated since, clearly exempting it as an "existing source." EPA should have allowed the company to test the kiln without the control device as an "existing source," sincethat was how the kiln was permitted and operated and continues to operate to this day.EPA'suse ofemissions data from a defunct control device that was not listed in any air permit, notrequired by any rule, and had not been operated in approximately 18 months is an inappropriate approach to rulemaking. When EPA is issuing regulatory actions, it is incumbent uponthe Agency to consider appropriate data in setting a regulatory floor for emissions. EPA should beusingthe best available data in any proposed rule and theirproposed Clay MACT rule is no exception. Thank you for yourprompt attention to tllis matter and we lookforward to yourresponse as well as seeing ourrequested changes reflected in the proposed rule. Sincerely,

# ~--- RonJohnson United States Senator United States Senator
HAMLET H.M.A., LLC v. HERNANDEZ

425A18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 30, 2019

Mark L. Hayes, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, for Hernandez, Pedro (M.D.)

William S. F. Freeman, Attorney at Law, Rebecca C. Huntington, Attorney at Law, for Hamlet H.M.A., LLC D/B/A Sandhills Regional Medical Center.

Linwood Jones, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for N.C. Healthcare Association.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of April 2019 by North Carolina Healthcare Association for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of April 2019."

Unless already submitted, the Amicus Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i).

Davis, J. recused
No. 09-9653.

#### Johnnie Wardlow, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1099, 130 S. Ct. 2387,

176 L. Ed. 2d 779,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3662.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 355 Fed. Appx. 354.
STATE of North Carolina v. Kyle Rico MILLER

No. COA18-904

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 2, 2019

NO ERROR IN PART. DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE IN PART.
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 11211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4705]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Friday March 4, 2011.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission 
Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance and Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084.

Sauntia S. Warfield,
Assistant Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2011-4705 Filed 2-25-11; 3:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```
109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5187

AN ACT

To amend the John F. Kennedy Center Act to aucal year 2007. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for fis- thorize additional appropriations for the John F. 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5187

AN ACT

To amend the John F. Kennedy Center Act to authorize 

additional appropriations for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for fiscal year 2007.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2

•HR 5187 EH 

1 SECTION 1. JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PER2 FORMING ARTS. 

3 (a) MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND SECURITY.—Sec4 tion 13(a) of the John F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. 

5 76r(a)) is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

7 end; 

8 (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ‘‘, 2006, and 

9 2007.’’ and inserting ‘‘and 2006; and’’; and 

10 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

11 ‘‘(3) $19,100,000 for fiscal year 2007.’’.

12 (b) CAPITAL PROJECTS.—Section 13(b) of such Act 

13 (20 U.S.C. 76r(b)) is amended— 

14 (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 

15 end; 

16 (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ‘‘, 2006, and 

17 2007.’’ and inserting ‘‘and 2006; and’’; and 

18 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

19 ‘‘(3) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 25, 2006. 

Attest:

Clerk.
-81 -80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75 -74

 36

 37

 38

 39

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

08/15

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 15 Aug 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.90 N 76.65 W Meters AGL
No. 09-931.

#### Kenneth L. Smith, Petitioner v. Michael L. Bender, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Colorado, et al.

559 U.S. 1086, 130 S. Ct. 2097,

176 L. Ed. 2d 756,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3132.

April 19, 2010.

Motion of petitioner to defer consideration of the petition for writ of certiorari denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 350 Fed. Appx. 190.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice (09-021)] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of inventions for licensing. 

# SUMMARY:

Patent applications on the inventions listed below assigned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing. 

# DATES:

March 11, 2009. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert M. Padilla, Patent Counsel, Ames Research Center, Code 202A-4, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000; telephone (650) 604-5104; fax (650) 604-2767. 

*NASA Case No. ARC-15983-1:*                         Radiation Shielding Systems Using Nanotechnology.                     

Dated: March 4, 2009. 

Richard W. Sherman, 

Deputy General Counsel.

 [FR Doc. E9-5105 Filed 3-10-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
STATE v. Corey F. MALDONADO

73P19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2019

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General, Brandy Cook, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Corey F. Maldonado, for Maldonado, Corey.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 26th of February 2019 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2019."
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without **

oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

FRITZ ANDERSON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Nos. 08-30469, 08-30470

D. Ct. No. 1:07-CR-00112-RFC-1,

D. Ct. No. 1:07-CR-00015-RFC-1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Montana

Richard F. Cebull, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 8, 2009 **

Portland, Oregon

Before: FARRIS, D.W. NELSON, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

Fritz Anderson was charged with 29 counts of drug trafficking in violation

of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and one count of using, carrying or possessing a firearm in

relation to drug trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). Anderson moved for

FILED

DEC 21 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

acquittal on the final count; the district court granted the motion as to using or

carrying a firearm but denied the motion as to possessing a firearm in furtherance

of a drug crime and let the count stand. The jury convicted Anderson on all thirty

counts, and the court imposed a sentence of 40 years (480 months). Anderson

timely appealed.

“[W]e review the district court’s denial of a motion to acquit de novo.” 

United States v. Mosley, 465 F.3d 412, 415 (9th Cir. 2006). “[A] defendant who

accepts firearms in exchange for drugs possesses the firearms ‘in furtherance of’ a

drug trafficking offense.” United States v. Mahan, No. 08-30475, slip op. at 8 (9th

Cir. Nov. 16, 2009). Because Anderson accepted firearms as partial payment for

outstanding drug debts, he possessed those firearms in furtherance of his drug

trafficking offenses, and the district court was correct to deny his motion to acquit. 

The substantive reasonableness of a sentence is reviewed under an abuse of

discretion standard. United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 993 (9th Cir. 2008) (en

banc). “For a non-Guidelines sentence, we are to ‘give due deference to the district

court's decision that the § 3553(a) factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the

variance.’” Id. (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). Nothing in

the record suggests that Judge Cebull abused his discretion when he departed

downward significantly, but not as far as Mr. Anderson would have preferred, from

the guideline sentence.
3

AFFIRMED.
ZLOOP, INC. v. PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP, et al.

122PA18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 5, 2019

Gavin J. Reardon, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, Amiel J. Rossabi, Attorney at Law, Bonnie Keith Green, Attorney at Law, for Zloop, INC.

Robert W. Fuller, Attorney at Law, Stuart L. Pratt, Attorney at Law, Mark W. Merritt, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein, LLP, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 3rd of July 2019 by Plaintiff to Stay All Proceedings in the Present Matter:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of July 2019."

Davis, J. recused
EXHIBIT
      32.4




Written
      Statement of Principal Accounting Officer Furnished Pursuant to


18
      U.S.C.
      Section 1350,


as
      Adopted by


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of HouseRaising, Inc. (the
      "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Christine M.
      Carriker, Secretary/ Treasurer, SVP and Chief Administrative Officer, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:




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




(2)
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition as of September 30, 2006 and results of operations
      for
      the quarter ended September 30, 2006 of the Company and its
      subsidiaries.






/s/
      Christine M. Carriker


Christine
      M. Carriker


Secretary/Treasurer,
      SVP and Chief Administrative Officer


(Principal
      Accounting Officer)





November
      14, 2006





This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
      Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.








-
          36
          -
Exhibit 32  CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002    I, Harry Chew, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Bi-Optic Ventures, Inc. (the Company) do hereby 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.  This Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended August 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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:  October 12, 2006  /s/  Harry Chew Harry Chew, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer                  1