alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-83,513-01

EX P ARTE EARNEST MAURICE BLE DSOE, Ap plicant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1191529-A IN THE 178TH DIS TRICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY
Per curiam . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1
. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleade d guilty to posse ssion of a controlled substance, and was sentenc ed pursuant to Section 12.44(a) of the Texas Penal Code to six ty day s’ county

jail imprisonment. He did not appeal his convic tion. Applicant contends that his plea was involuntary and that his conviction violates due proce ss beca use af ter he enter ed his plea, laboratory tests reve aled that the e vidence in this case conta ined
no controlled substance. Applicant alleg es that he was never advised of the laboratory test results,2

and alleg es that he would not have pleade d guilty to this offe nse had he known that the evidenc e did not s upport the char g e. The parties have enter ed ag ree d finding s of fac t and conclusions of law, which the tria l court has a dopted. The trial cour t has deter

mined that Applicant is entitled to relief
. Ex parte Huerta , 692 S.W .2d 681 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Ex parte M able , 443 S.W . 3d 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Relief is g rante d. The judgme nt in Cause No. 1191529 in the 178th District Court of Har ris County is set aside, and Applicant is rema nded to the custody of the Sheriff of Har ris County to answe r the char g es as set out in the information. The trial court shall issue any nece ssary bench war rant within 10 day s after

the mandate of this Court issues. Copies of th is o p in io n s h a ll b e s e nt to the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice–Corre ctional Institut ions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Deliver ed: J uly

29, 2015 Do not publish
----

**EXHIBIT 10.14**

**CONSULTING      AGREEMENT**

**Section      1**

**SCOPE      OF SERVICES**

**1.1**
**Services**

**1.2**
**Conduct      of Services**

**1.3**
**Method      of Performing Services**

**1.4**
**Scheduling**

**1.5**
**Reporting**

**Section      2**

**TERMINATION**

----

**2.1**
**Termination.**

**2.2**
**Remaining      Payments.**

**Section      3**

**FEES,      EXPENSES, AND PAYMENT**

**3.1**
**Fees.**

**3.2**
**Expenses**

**Section      4**

**RESPONSIBILITIES      OF CONSULTANT FOR TAXES AND OTHER MATTERS**

**4.1      **
**Taxes**

----

**Section      5**

**CONFIDENTIALITY**

**5.1      **
**Confidentiality      Arrangements.**

**Section      6**

**MISCELLANEOUS**

**6.1**
**No      Conflict**

**6.2**
**Compliance      with Federal Securities Laws.**

**6.3**
**Force      Majeure**

**6.4**
**Governing      Law**

**6.5**
**Independent      Contractors**

**6.6**
**Notices**

----

**6.7**
**Entire      Agreement**

**6.8**
**Effect      of Waiver**

**6.9**
**Severability**

**6.10**
**Voluntary      Agreement**

**6.11**
**Construction**

**6.12      **
**Survival      of Obligations**

----

**6.13**
**Costs      and Attorneys Fees**
** **
<page>                                      EXHIBIT 31.02
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jeffrey D. Hahn, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management
Corporation ("Demeter"), the general partner of the registrant,
certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the
registrant;

2.	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a
material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report;

3.	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly
present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)	Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;

b)	Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and

c)	Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred
during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting; and


<page>
5.	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of Demeter's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)	All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)	Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role
in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.




Date:  November 14, 2003      /s/Jeffrey D. Hahn
                                 Jeffrey D. Hahn
                                 Chief Financial Officer,
                                 Demeter Management Corporation,
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5589 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5589

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to transfer to United 
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement all functions of the Customs 
      Patrol Officers unit operating on the Tohono O'odham Indian 
                              reservation.

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

SECTION 1. SHADOW WOLVES TRANSFER.

    (a) Transfer of Existing Unit.--Not later that 90 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security 
shall transfer to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement all 
functions (including the personnel, assets, and liabilities 
attributable to such functions) of the Customs Patrol Officers unit 
operating on the Tohono O'odham Indian reservation (commonly known as 
the ``Shadow Wolves'' unit).
    (b) Establishment of New Units.--The Secretary is authorized to 
establish within United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
additional units of Customs Patrol Officers in accordance with this 
section, as appropriate.
    (c) Duties.--The Customs Patrol Officer unit transferred pursuant 
to subsection (a), and additional units established pursuant to 
subsection (b), shall operate on Indian lands by preventing the entry 
of terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, 
narcotics, and other contraband into the United States.
    (d) Basic Pay for Journeyman Officers.--A Customs Patrol Officer in 
a unit described in this section shall receive equivalent pay as a 
special agent with similar competencies within United States 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement pursuant to the Department of 
Homeland Security's Human Resources Management System established under 
section 841 of the Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. 411).
    (e) Supervisors.--Each unit described in this section shall be 
supervised by a Chief Customs Patrol Officer, who shall have the same 
rank as a resident agent-in-charge of the Office of Investigations 
within United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 10, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5589

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to transfer to United 
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement all functions of the Customs 
      Patrol Officers unit operating on the Tohono O'odham Indian 
                              reservation.
```
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 134933 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 134933 

 COA: 277964 

Oscoda CC: 06-000945-FH 

STUART DUANE AURICH,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 8, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
Re: Reconsideration Question 

Bill Maxwell 

to: Ralph Roberson 

12/19/2012 08:04 AM 

Cc: RobertJ Wayland 

Ralph, 

The following list of units is derived from the detailed data files from the 

2010 ICR data responses that are in the docket. 

Non-low rank virgin coal-fired EGUs: 

Logan Generating Plant B01 

Elm Road Generating Station 1 

Clover 1 

Clover 2 

Chambers Cogeneration LP Boiler 1 

Chambers Cogeneration LP Boiler 2 

Mount Tom 1 

HL Spurlock 3 

The low rank virgin coal-fired EGU is Sandow 5A. 

Thanks. 

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt 

Bill Maxwell 

Energy Strategies Group 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 

109 T.W. Alexander Drive 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Phone: 919-541-5430 

FAX: 919-541-5450 

From: Ralph Roberson <roberson@rmb-consulting.com> 

To: Bill Maxwell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA 

Date: 12/13/2012 04:43 PM 

Subject: Reconsideration Question 

I'm getting questions from those inquiring minds who want to know the name of 

the eight units that "have reported short-term stack test data that demonstrate 

that these EGUs have in practice achieved the new source limits proposed in 

this notice." (77 Fed. Reg., 71,329 (November 30, 2012)). 

I assume it wouldn't not be too difficult to figure out, but I also 

assume EPA already has compiled that list? 

Thanks, 

Ralph
Lease Extension Agreement between Weir Redevelopment Company and Kirkhill TA



 EXHIBIT 10.4 
 LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT 
 BETWEEN 

WEIR REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY 
 AND 
 KIRKHILL TA CORPORATION 
 Both Weir Redevelopment Company and Kirkhill TA Corporation agree to extend an original lease dated June 1, 1998, which
has been extended and amended by mutual agreement since its inception. The extended term will incorporate the following revised terms. 
  

	 	1.	The term of the extended lease will be for one (1) year commencing on May 1, 2010 and terminating on April 30, 2011. 

  

	 	2.	The annual base rent will be $224,016.00 payable monthly in advance in equal payments of $18,668.00. 

  

	 	3.	Lessee may extend term for two (2) additional one (1) year terms with a six month notice to Lessor at the same annual base rent. 

  

							
	Agreed to this day October 30, 2009	 		 	
				
	By:	 	/s/ Leonard S. Jolles	 		 	
		 	Leonard S. Jolles        Weir Redevelopment Corporation	 		 	
				
	By:	 	/s/ Jim Sweeney	 		 	
		 	Kirkhill TA Corporation
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF
CURTIS W. MEWBOURNE / CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF MEWBOURNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350 I, Curtis W. Mewbourne, Chief Executive Officer of Mewbourne Development
Corporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 03-A, L.P.
(the Registrant), hereby certify that the accompanying report on Form 10-Q,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 and filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Report) by the Registrant fully complies
with the requirements of that section. I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Registrant. /s/ Curtis W. MewbourneName: Curtis W. MewbourneDate: November 11, 2004
 18
EXHIBIT
23.2
 
  CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
  ClearOne
Communications, Inc.
  We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-148789 and 333-137859 of ClearOne Communications, Inc. on Form S-8 of our
audit report dated  August 21, 2006, appearing in this Annual Report
on Form 10-K of ClearOne Communications, Inc. for the year ended June 30,
2008.
  /s/
Hansen Barnett & Maxwell, P.C.
  HANSEN
BARNETT & MAXWELL, P.C.
  Salt Lake
City, Utah
  August
26, 2008
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RANJIT SINGH, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

MATTHEW G. WHITAKER, Acting 

Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 17-73273 

Agency No. A208-562-314 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Ranjit Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board 

of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s 

decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief

under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 

 

* 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).

FILED

DEC 5 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-73273 

8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, 

applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations created by the 

REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2010). We 

deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination 

based on omissions in Singh’s credible fear interview and on inconsistencies 

between Singh’s declaration, testimony, and documentary evidence as to the date 

and number of times Singh was arrested and harmed in India. See Zamanov v. 

Holder, 649 F.3d 969, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2011) (omission constituting a material 

alteration of petitioner’s story may support an adverse credibility determination);

Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048 (adverse credibility finding reasonable under the 

totality of the circumstances). Singh’s explanations do not compel a contrary 

conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence 

of credible testimony, in this case, Singh’s asylum and withholding of removal 

claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

Singh’s CAT claim also fails because it is based on the same testimony the 

agency found not credible, and the record does not otherwise compel the 

conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured if returned to India. 

See id. at 1156-57.

Finally, we reject Singh’s contentions that the agency did not consider all of 
3 17-73273 

his evidence.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
V 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5619 

To extend the patent term for the badge of the American Legion, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 14, 2006 

Mr. CANNON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To extend the patent term for the badge of the American 

Legion, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PATENT TERM EXTENSION FOR THE BADGE OF 

4 THE AMERICAN LEGION. 

5 The term of a certain design patent numbered 54,296 

6 (for the badge of the American Legion) is renewed and 

7 extended for a period of 14 years beginning on the date 

8 of enactment of this Act, with all the rights and privileges 

9 pertaining to such patent. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6667

In Re: GARLAND EDWARD PITTMAN,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-00-121)

Submitted: August 8, 2002 Decided: September 19, 2002

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Garland Edward Pittman, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Garland Edward Pittman petitions this court for a writ of

mandamus directing the district court to rule on his habeas corpus

petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), which Pittman

filed in June 2000. The district court docket sheet reveals that

on July 29, 2002, the district court entered a final order denying

relief on Pittman’s § 2254 petition. Accordingly, Pittman has

received the relief he seeks in his mandamus petition. Although we

grant Pittman leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we dismiss the

mandamus petition as moot. Pittman’s motions for leave to file

exhibits, for stay of judgment and injunction, and for appointment

of counsel are denied. We 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.

PETITION DISMISSED
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04360A189
/Lis, Ca-Wv^?, V-msVc dWK !<ICOURT OF/ \i- ti\!.,^ 121hCourtnfygqp;.^ ."Hxrriz; j

~^<A Co^V C^t (JMavwxW IS-a.o.VMrc. 

### M5 Uu^k-X ^^0^2-^- -Cor -VW <kWv^ ia v*^ Wd wvfcoec> Vo \W \<wj*<> OVA \s\ (&c.\. *?>tA \V coc^S 

### \o w^u^^Wc)^c -VW^v-c o3^S ao Ccxse -&>«' 

## iAnc)cr&\ooJ c^> wie. Cph\J ^ ^\e^t fc-V rn^ W>-i> vJ^cV. Vxc£ Cd^€L c£ -Hv.^ 0^c& O^W^ C^ftL. <^*\ GVo,nCCS 

### C^- vWX^i»\C> ^4oa__ Oj^f<^A' "T^wV- ^ow "TOP +W_

### Sorc^ \o W'So cWA<lV5> . JU f*c^ ~\?*-W«- +WQo^V "for -Torcj-^c,ne65 Ooac) -C^ <^ ^^i^^^a

T-^ X Woe CLwcVo'bec) vv\<-^ ?ccAe. \t.^df \o v^o<^
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with the Annual Report of AEI  Real  Estate  Fund
XVIII Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-KSB  for
the  period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XVIII, Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership, and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XVIII,  Inc.,  each  certify, pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  1350,  as
adopted  pursuant  to  Section 906 of 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; and

     2.   The   information  contained  in  the   Report   fairly
          presents,  in  all  material  respects,  the  financial
          condition and results of operations of the Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              January 7, 2008



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XVIII, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              January 7, 2008
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A16I0030. JOAN WILKERSON v. AUGUSTA HOSPITAL, LLC.

Joan Wilkerson, as Next of Kin and Executrix of the estate of Harrell

Wilkerson, Jr., seeks interlocutory review of an August 19, 2015 order dismissing

defendant Augusta Hospital, LLC d/b/a Trinity Hospital of Augusta. The certificate

of immediate review, however, was not entered until 23 days later, on September 11,

2015.

Under OCGA § 5-6-34 (b), a party may request interlocutory review only if the

trial court certifies within ten days of entry of the order at issue that immediate review

should be had. If the certificate of immediate review is not entered within that tenday period, it is untimely, and the party seeking review must wait until the final

judgment to appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-34 (b); Turner v. Harper, 231 Ga. 175, 176

(200 SE2d 748) (1973).

Here, although the trial court signed the certificate of immediate review nunc

pro tunc to August 19, 2015, the relevant date for determining the timeliness of the

certificate is the date it was entered. See Van Schallern v. Stanco, 130 Ga. App. 687

(204 SE2d 317) (1974) (“[A] certificate for the immediate review of a nonfinal or

interlocutory judgment is ineffective unless entered, i.e., filed with the clerk, within

ten days after entry of the judgment appealed from.”); Whitlock v. State, 124 Ga. App.

599, 601 (1) (185 SE2d 90) (1971) (“A nunc pro tunc entry of a certificate for

immediate review cannot revive a right of appeal which has expired.”).

October 05, 2015
Because the trial court did not enter the certificate of immediate review within

ten days of entry of the order at issue, we lack jurisdiction to consider this

application, which is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/05/2015