alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 2, 2013.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-13-00285-CR

JAMIE FINCH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. FO-10-20420

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On November 22, 2010, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant 

entered a guilty plea to the offense of hindering apprehension and the trial court 

placed her on deferred adjudication community supervision for five years. 

Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant had violated 

certain conditions of her community supervision. On February 11, 2013, also 

pursuant to an agreement, appellant entered a plea of true to the allegations in the 
2

State’s motion and waived her right to appeal. The trial court adjudicated

appellant guilty of the offense and, in accordance with the agreement, sentenced 

appellant to confinement for fifteen (15) months in the State Jail Division of the 

Texas Department of Criminal Justice and assessed a $734 fine. Appellant filed a 

pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

Negotiated waivers of the right to appeal are valid. See Monreal v. State, 99 

S.W.3d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). The record reflects the State gave 

consideration for appellant’s waiver. In exchange for a plea of true to the 

allegations in the motion to adjudicate guilt, appellant was convicted of the lesser 

included offense of attempted hindering apprehension and sentenced to fifteen 

months in the State Jail Division. Accordingly, the waver is valid. See Ex parte 

Broadway, 301 S.W.3d 694, 697-98 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). Cf Washington v. 

State, 363 S.W.3d 589, 590 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (waiver was not valid because 

the record did not confirm the State gave any consideration for defendant’s 

waiver). 

The record on appeal contains the trial court’s certification of the 

defendant’s right to appeal in which the court certified the defendant has waived 

the right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The record supports the 

trial court’s certification. See Dears v. State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Christopher, and McCally.

Do Not Publish C Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
### 33994 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 109 / Thursday, June 6, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

**DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations**  **System 48 CFR Part 252**  **RIN Number 0750–AG38 Defense Federal Acquisition**  **Regulation Supplement; Government Support Contractor Access to**  **Technical Data (DFARS 2009–D031); Correction**  **AGENCY :**  Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD). **ACTION :**  Final rule; correction.
**SUMMARY :**  This document corrects the amendatory language to a final rule published in the Federal Register on May 22, 2013, 78 FR 30233, regarding the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Government Support Contractor Access to Technical Data (DFARS 2009–D031). This correction makes two corrections to the amendatory language. **DATES :**  Effective Date: June 6, 2013. **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Mr. Mark Gomersall, 571–372–6099. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  Correction

In the Federal Register of May 22, 2013 (78 FR 30233) in the amendatory language, correct the following: **252.212–7001 [Corrected]**
■ 1. On page 30238, in the center column, amendatory instruction 6a is corrected to read as follows: ■ ‘‘6. Section 252.212–7001 is amended—
■ a. By removing the clause date ‘‘(MAR 2013)’’ and adding ‘‘(MAY 2013)’’ in its place.’’ **252.227–7014 [Corrected]**
■ 2. On page 30238, in the right hand column, amendatory instruction 8b is corrected to read as follows:
■ ‘‘8. Section 252.227–7014 is amended—
■ b. By revising paragraph (a)(15); and (b)(3)(iii) to read as follows:’’ Kortnee Stewart, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System. [FR Doc. 2013–13403 Filed 6–5–13; 8:45 am] **BILLING CODE 5001–06–P**
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Production and decomposition of forest litter fall on the Apalachicola River flood plain, Florida      

      January 1, 1982    

View Document

Measurements of litter fall (leaves and other particulate organic material) and leaf decomposition were made on the bottom-land hardwood swamp of the Apalachicola River flood plain in 1979-80. Litter fall was collected monthly from nets located in 16 study plots. The plots represented five forest types in the swamp and levee areas of the Apalachicola River flood plain. Forty-three species of trees, vines, and other plants contributed to the total litter fall, but over 90 percent of the leaf material originated from 12 species. Nonleaf material comprised 42 percent of the total litter fall. Average litter fall was determined to be 800 grams per square meter per year, resulting in an annual deposition of 360,000 metric tons of organic material in the 454-square-kilometer flood plain.

The levee communities have lower tree biomass but higher tree diversity than swamp communities. The levee vegetation, with lower tree biomass, produces slightly more litter fall per ground surface area than the swamp vegetation. The swamps are dominated by three genera: tupelo (Nyssa), cypress (Taxodium), and ash (Fraxinus). These genera account for over 50 percent of the total leaf fall in the flood plain but they are the least productive, on a weight-per-biomass basis, of any of the 12 major leaf producers.

Decomposition rates of leaves from five common flood-plain tree species were measured using a standard leaf-bag technique. Leaf decomposition was highly species-dependent. Tupelo (Nyssa spp.) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) leaves decomposed completely in 6 months when flooded by river water. Leaves of baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) and diamond-leaf oak (Quercus laurifolia) were much more resistant. Water hickory (Carya aquatica) leaves showed intermediate decomposition rates. Decomposition of all species was greatly reduced in dry environments. Carbon and biomass loss rates from the leaves were nearly linear over a 6-month period, but nitrogen and phosphorus leaching was nearly complete within 1 month. Much of the organic substance may be recycled in the forest ecosystem, but annual flooding of the river provides an important mechanism for mobilization of the litter-fall products.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Apalachicola River flood plain
                  - Florida

View All **
Case 21-01382-PDR Doc 28 Filed 03/08/22 Page 1 of 13
Case 21-01382-PDR Doc 28 Filed 03/08/22 Page 2 of 13
Case 21-01382-PDR Doc 28 Filed 03/08/22 Page 3 of 13
Case 21-01382-PDR Doc 28 Filed 03/08/22 Page 4 of 13
Case 21-01382-PDR Doc 28 Filed 03/08/22 Page 5 of 13
Case 21-01382-PDR Doc 28 Filed 03/08/22 Page 6 of 13
Case 21-01382-PDR Doc 28 Filed 03/08/22 Page 7 of 13
Case 21-01382-PDR Doc 28 Filed 03/08/22 Page 8 of 13
Case 21-01382-PDR Doc 28 Filed 03/08/22 Page 9 of 13
Case 21-01382-PDR Doc 28 Filed 03/08/22 Page 10 of 13
Case 21-01382-PDR Doc 28 Filed 03/08/22 Page 11 of 13
Case 21-01382-PDR Doc 28 Filed 03/08/22 Page 12 of 13
Case 21-01382-PDR Doc 28 Filed 03/08/22 Page 13 of 13
Douglas Leland GRANSTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3245

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2
 
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of RigNet, Inc. (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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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.
    
    [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];c.
    
    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; andd.
    
    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
 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 the Registrant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;
andb.
    
    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.
 By:
    /s/ MARTIN JIMMERSONMartin JimmersonChief Financial Officer
Order entered February 18 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 00113 - CV IN RE CATHERINE HAYNES, Relator Original Proceeding from the 95th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 13 - 1 2828 

### O RDER Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We ORDER that relator bear the costs of this original proceeding.

. /s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Summary of oral month-to-month agreement (Charlie Brown Air Corp.)




 Exhibit 10.13 
 In January 2006, Rex Energy Operating Corp., a Delaware corporation with an address at 1975 Waddle Road, State College, Pennsylvania 16803 (“Rex Operating”), entered into an oral month-to-month agreement with Charlie Brown Air
Corp., a New York corporation with an address at 1965 Waddle Road, State College, Pennsylvania 16803 (“Charlie Brown”), regarding right the use of two airplanes owned by Charlie Brown. Charlie Brown is owned and controlled by Lance T.
Shaner, the Chairman and controlling stockholder of Rex Operating. Under the agreement, Rex Operating pays a monthly fee for the right to use the airplanes equal to its percentage of use of the airplanes (based on the total number of hours of use of
the airplanes by Rex Operating) of the monthly fixed costs for the airplanes, plus a variable per hour flight rate of $1,350 per hour.
Marrio Demetric WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-4144

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed November 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Michael T. MONTAGNA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1676

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed August 14, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Jeremy Todd KOSIER, DOC #R14655, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-1269

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 30, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
R.B., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-539

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed August 22, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2020437EN.01002001.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 18.12.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/20 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10021 — Netcompany/Copenhagen Airports/SMARTER AIRPORTS JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 437/09)

1.

On 11 December 2020, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2020437EN.01002001-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Netcompany A/S (‘Netcompany’, Denmark), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Københavns Lufthavne A/S (‘Copenhagen Airports’, Denmark), jointly controlled by Arbejdsmarkedets Tillægspension and the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | SMARTER AIRPORTS A/S (‘SMARTER AIRPORTS’, Denmark). |

Netcompany and Copenhagen Airports acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of SMARTER AIRPORTS.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Netcompany: provision of IT services, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for Copenhagen Airports: owning and operating the airports at Kastrup and Roskilde, Denmark, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | for SMARTER AIRPORTS: provision of a new airport management system to third party airports. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2020437EN.01002001-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10021 — Netcompany/Copenhagen Airports/SMARTER AIRPORTS JV

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2020437EN.01002001-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2020437EN.01002001-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
**Index**

**A -**  **001 Structure Activity Team (SAT) Report for** 

**PMN P -**  **11 -**  **0135 A** **- 002**  **Initial Review Engineering Report for**

**PMN P -**  **11 -**  **0135 A** **- 003**  **Initial Review Exposure Report for**

**PMN P -**  **11 -**  **0135**
Albon C. DIAMOND, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-5051

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 7, 2018 Rehearing Denied July 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          49,408
<SECURITIES>                                   975,411
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,853,833
<PP&E>                                          19,857
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,415
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,868,275
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,528,551
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         70
<COMMON>                                        22,299
<OTHER-SE>                                   (246,849)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,868,275
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               914,301
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,624,497
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (710,196)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (710,196)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (710,196)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)


</TABLE>
Mark DALEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1992

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed August 7, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_faqs(4)
              - science_science(189)
              - products_data(130)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2007)
              - products_software(7)
              - products_web_tools(8)
              - multimedia_audio(82)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(78)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(4)
              - multimedia_before_after(5)
              - multimedia_image(196)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(145)
              - multimedia_image-141772(4)
              - multimedia_image-141774(2)
              - multimedia_image-141775(22)
              - multimedia_image-141776(16)
              - multimedia_image-204460(2)
              - multimedia_slideshow(2)
              - multimedia_video(229)
              - multimedia_video-149194(87)
              - multimedia_video-149195(54)
              - multimedia_video-149196(16)
              - multimedia_video-149197(15)
              - multimedia_video-149198(13)
              - multimedia_video-149225(2)
              - documents_file(10)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149214(4)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - (-)documents_file-149222(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - (-)news_news-149246(2)
              - news_news-149248(5)
              - news_news-149249(2)
              - news_news-149250(7)
              - news_newsletters(2)
              - news_other_news(36)
              - connect_staff_profiles(23)
              - other_basic-37(3)
              - other_basic-42(16)

## By Location

              - colorado(1)
              - massachusetts(1)

## By Year

Science Snippet        February 23, 2023        Volcanic explosion penetrates both upper atmosphere and upper crust around the globe

Science Snippet        September 18, 2023        Can oceans store more CO2 to help with climate change?

Records        September 18, 2019        1983 G. Ohrig, M. Matson, D.F. McGinnis, and S.R. Schneider of the Nat
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_science(2)
              - products_publications(16)
              - products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - arizona(1)
              - california(7)
              - colorado(4)
              - hawaii(36)
              - iowa(1)
              - (-)louisiana(1)
              - massachusetts(3)
              - north carolina(8)
              - oregon(1)
              - south dakota(1)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(3)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

Photography        August 26, 2017        Hurricane Harvey Inundates Gulf Coast
STATE EX REL. David FLEEKS v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-0861

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

August 3, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF CADDO**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.

CRICHTON, J., recused.
Alejandro APARICIO, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Valerie GREENBERG, etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0621

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

JUNE 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Charlie JACKSON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0267

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.