alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion filed August 30, 2019

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals __________

No. 11-19-00246-CR

__________

LAKESHA LASHAWN BARNES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 42nd District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 26730A

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

Lakesha Lashawn Barnes has filed an untimely notice of appeal in this cause. 

She attempts to appeal from her convictions for the offenses of possession of 

methamphetamine and tampering with evidence. We dismiss the appeal. 

The documents on file in this appeal indicate that Appellant’s sentences were

imposed on May 16, 2017. Pursuant to Rule 26.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, a notice of appeal is due to be filed either (1) within thirty days after the 

date that sentence is imposed or suspended in open court or (2) if the defendant 
2

timely files a motion for new trial, within ninety days after the date that sentence is 

imposed or suspended in open court. A notice of appeal must be in writing and filed 

with the clerk of the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(c)(1). The documents on file

in this court reflect that Appellant’s pro se notice of appeal was filed in the district 

clerk’s office on July 29, 2019—804 days after one sentence was imposed and the 

other one was suspended. Absent a timely filed notice of appeal or the granting of 

a timely motion for extension of time, we do not have jurisdiction to entertain this

appeal. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); Olivo v. State, 

918 S.W.2d 519, 522–23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 

110 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). 

On July 29, 2019, when the appeal was filed in this court, we notified 

Appellant by letter that the notice of appeal appeared to be untimely and that the 

appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We requested that Appellant 

respond to our letter and show grounds to continue. Appellant has filed a response, 

but she has not shown grounds upon which this appeal may proceed.

1

 

We dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 

August 30, 2019 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., 

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.2

Willson, J., not participating.

 1

We note that, in her response, Appellant indicates that her court-appointed attorney failed to pursue 

an appeal on her behalf. Appellant is mistaken; the convictions that Appellant attempts to appeal in this 

cause were timely appealed and pursued by Appellant’s court-appointed attorney. See Barnes v. State, 

No. 11-17-00133-CR, 2019 WL 1966852, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Eastland May 2, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., 

not designated for publication). 

2

Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired), Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland, 

sitting by assignment.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00213-CV

In re Jose Guadalupe Vasquez

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

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

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith

Filed: April 20, 2022
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



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


        As of the date hereof, I, Jonathan N. Zakin, 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 of Proxim Corporation on Form 10-Q for
the fiscal quarter ended June 28, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in
all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of
Proxim Corporation.


                                  By:  /s/ Jonathan N. Zakin
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                  Name:   Jonathan N. Zakin
                                  Title:  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                  Dated:  August 12, 2002
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14** 

**- 2386** 

In R e: JILL PARRISH

,

Debtor

.

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

JILL PARRISH,

Plaintiff

– Appellant,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant

– Appellee,

and

WILLIAM P. MILLER,

Party

- in

- Interest

,

ANITA JO TROXLER,

Trustee

.

**No. 14** 

**- 2387** 

In R e: JILL HEDGECOCK PARRISH

,

Debtor

.

------- -----------------------------2 JILL PARRISH,

Plaintiff

– Appellant,

v.

WILLIAM P. MILLER, Bankruptcy Administrator,

Defendant

- Appellee

,

and

ANITA JO TROXLER,

Trustee.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Catherine C. Eagles

, District Judge. ( 1:14

- cv

- 00 856

- CCE; 1: 14

- cv

- 00916

- CCE ; 14

- 10681 )

Submitted : May 15, 2015 Decided: May 29, 2015

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Jill Parrish, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela P. Keenan, KIRSCHBAUM, NANNEY, KEENAN & GRIFFIN, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina ; Robert Edmunds Price, Jr., UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATOR, Greensboro, North Carolina , for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are n ot binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Jill Parrish appeals the district court ’ s order s dismissing

her appeals from the bankruptcy court’s orders granting a

creditor relief from the automatic stay in her bankruptcy case

and denying her request for a hardship discharge. The

bankruptcy court subsequently dismissed the underlying

bankruptcy case on an unrelated basis and Parrish has not

appealed that dismissal. Because the bankruptcy case has been

dismissed, this court cannot afford Parrish any e ffective

relief. See In re Stadium Mgt. Corp. , 895 F.2d 845, 847 (1st

Cir. 1990) (“Absent a stay, the court must dismiss a pending

appeal as moot because the court has no remedy that it can

fashion even if it would have determined the issues

differently.” ). Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis and dismiss the se appeal s as moot

. We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before th is court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Desert climate and soils

Filters

              - science_science(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(2)
              - arizona(10)
              - california(14)
              - colorado(3)
              - idaho(2)
              - montana(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(2)
              - new mexico(4)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oregon(1)
              - south dakota(5)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(5)
              - (-)wyoming(2)

## By Year

              - 2024(1)

staff profileSeth Munson, Ph.D.

Project        September 18, 2023        New Tools for Modern Land Management Decisions
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           3,392
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  198,196
<ALLOWANCES>                                    32,085
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               199,364
<PP&E>                                         185,998
<DEPRECIATION>                                  78,971
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 663,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           99,430
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (36,663)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   663,144
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               371,444
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  291,470
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                40,389
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                26,808
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,147
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,026
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,814
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,212
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,212
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
JAMES SQUARED REALTY, LLC, etc., Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., etc., Appellee.

No. 3D17-1042

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed September 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 20552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08772]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 9098]

In the Matter of the Designation of Ali Ouni Harzi Also Known as 
Ali Harzi Also Known as Ali Bin Al-tahar Bin Al-falah Al-ouni Al-Harzi 
as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of 
Executive Order 13224, as Amended

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) 
of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive 
Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 
2003, I hereby determine that the individual known as Ali Ouni Harzi, 
also known as Ali Harzi, also known as Ali Bin Al-tahar Bin Al-falah 
Al-ouni Al-Harzi, committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, 
acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the 
national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
    Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 
13224 that ``prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the 
Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States 
would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in 
the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,'' I 
determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person 
subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence 
in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the 
measures authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: March 30, 2015.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2015-08772 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5804 

To provide that members of the Armed Forces performing hazardous humanitarian services in West Africa to combat the spread of the 2014 Ebola 

virus outbreak shall be entitled to tax benefits in the same manner 

as if such services were performed in a combat zone. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2014 

Mr. O’ROURKE (for himself, Mr. WILLIAMS, and Mr. CARTER) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To provide that members of the Armed Forces performing 

hazardous humanitarian services in West Africa to combat the spread of the 2014 Ebola virus outbreak shall 

be entitled to tax benefits in the same manner as if 

such services were performed in a combat zone. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Operation United As5 sistance Tax Exclusion Act of 2014’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5804 IH

1 SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN HAZARDOUS HUMANI2 TARIAN SERVICE AS COMBAT ZONE SERVICE 

3 FOR PURPOSES OF THE COMBAT ZONE COM4 PENSATION EXCLUSION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of section 112 of the 

6 Internal Revenue Code of 1986, service by a qualified 

7 member of the Armed Forces during Operation United As8 sistance shall be treated as service in a combat zone in 

9 the same manner as if the President of the United States 

10 had by Executive Order designated the Ebola virus disease 

11 outbreak area as an area of combat under section 

12 112(c)(2) of such Code. 

13 (b) DEFINITIONS.— 

14 (1) QUALIFIED MEMBER OF THE ARMED

15 FORCES.—The term ‘‘qualified member of the 

16 Armed Forces’’ means a member of the Armed 

17 Forces serving in Operation United Assistance who 

18 is required to undergo a program of not less than 

19 21 days of controlled monitoring in a controlled 

20 monitoring area upon the individual’s return from 

21 the Ebola virus disease outbreak area. 

22 (2) OPERATION UNITED ASSISTANCE.—The 

23 term ‘‘Operation United Assistance’’ means the mis24 sion beginning in September 2014 in the Ebola virus 

25 disease outbreak area. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 5804 IH

1 (3) EBOLA VIRUS DISEASE OUTBREAK AREA.— 

2 The term ‘‘Ebola virus disease outbreak area’’ 

3 means Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea, and any 

4 other region designated by the Centers for Disease 

5 Control and Prevention as experiencing a widespread 

6 Ebola virus disease outbreak as of the date of the 

7 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-4267

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KEBRAE ODERO BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, 

District Judge. (2:10-cr-00019-D-1)

Submitted: September 30, 2011 Decided: October 21, 2011

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen Clayton Gordon, Assistant Federal Public Defender, 

Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kebrae Odero Brown pled guilty to possessing a firearm 

after having been convicted of a crime punishable by 

imprisonment for a term exceeding one year in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), reserving his right to appeal the 

issue of whether his prior state convictions were punishable by 

more than one year of imprisonment. The offenses in question 

were prior North Carolina convictions for possession of burglary 

tools and attempted breaking and entering; for each of these 

offenses Brown faced a maximum possible sentence of ten months 

under North Carolina law. 

Brown appealed, arguing that neither of his prior 

convictions was “punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 

one year” under the Supreme Court’s decision in CarrachuriRosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010). We recently held 

that, when deciding whether a North Carolina conviction is a 

predicate offense for sentencing enhancement purposes, the 

Controlled Substance Act’s inclusion of offenses “punishable by 

imprisonment for more than one year” refers to the maximum 

sentence that the defendant in question could have received, not 

the sentence that could have been imposed on a defendant with a 

more severe criminal history or one subject to an aggravated 

sentence. United States v. Simmons, 649 F.3d 237, 241 (4th Cir. 

2011) (en banc). Thus, because neither of Brown’s underlying 
3

North Carolina convictions was punishable by a term exceeding 

one year, Brown’s conduct that formed the basis for his federal

conviction — possessing a firearm — did not violate § 922(g). 

Accordingly, we reverse Brown’s conviction and remand 

for further proceedings.∗ The clerk is directed to issue the 

mandate forthwith. 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.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

 ∗ This disposition conveys no criticism of either the 

Government or the district court, both of which dutifully 

applied circuit precedent at the time of Brown’s prosecution and 

sentencing that was later reversed by Simmons. See United 

States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2005).
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 100987-100988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29352]

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force

Notice of Adoption of Categorical Exclusions Under the National 
Environmental Policy Act; Correction

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Notice of adoption of categorical exclusions; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects the description for five categorical 
exclusions (CATEXes) adopted by the Department of the Air Force through 
posting in the Federal Register on 25 November 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jack Bush, DAF NEPA Policy and 
Execution Oversite, 703-695-1773, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of November 25, 2024, in FR Doc. 2024-
27545, on pages 92912 and 92913, the following corrections are made:
    On page 92912 in the third column for DON CATEX (f)(27), the word 
``like'' is corrected to ``similar to'' in the sentence.

[[Page 100988]]

    On page 92912 in the third column for DON CATEX (f)(33), the word 
``like'' is corrected to ``similar to'' in the first sentence.
    On page 92913 in the second column, NASA CATEX (d)(2)(i) is revised 
to read: ``(d)(2)(i) Routine maintenance, minor construction or 
rehabilitation, minor demolition, minor modification, minor repair, and 
continuing or altered operations at, or of, existing NASA or NASA-
funded or -approved facilities and equipment, such as buildings, roads, 
grounds, utilities, communication systems, and ground support systems 
(e.g., space tracking and data systems). This includes routine 
operations such as security, public health and safety, and 
environmental services.''
    On page 92913 in the second column, NASA CATEX (d)(3)(i) is revised 
to read: ``(d)(3)(i) Research, development, testing, and evaluation in 
compliance with all applicable Federal, state, Tribal, or local laws or 
requirements and Executive Orders. This includes the research, 
development, testing, and evaluation of scientific instruments proposed 
for use on spacecraft, aircraft (including unmanned aircraft systems), 
sounding rockets, balloons, laboratories, watercraft, or other outdoor 
activities.''
    On page 92913 in the second column, NASA CATEX (d)(3)(iii) is 
revised to read: ``(d)(3)(iii) Use of lasers for research and 
development, scientific instruments and measurements, and distance and 
ranging, where such use meets all applicable Federal, state, Tribal, or 
local laws or requirements and Executive orders. This includes lasers 
associated with spacecraft, aircraft (including unmanned aircraft 
systems), sounding rockets, balloons, laboratories, watercraft, or 
other outdoor activities.''

Tommy W. Lee,
Acting Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2024-29352 Filed 12-12-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3911-44-P
```
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED**

**PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed Registration Statement No. 333-129550 on Form S-8 of New Peoples Bankshares, Inc. of our reports dated March 10, 2009, related to the consolidated balance sheets of New Peoples Bankshares, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2008, and with respect to the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting which appear in the New Peoples Bankshares, Inc. 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008.

 

 

/S/  BROWN, EDWARDS & COMPANY, L.L.P.

|   | CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS |
|--------|------------------------------|

 

 

Bluefield, West Virginia

May 26, 2009
mrin-ex101_96.htm



Exhibit 10.1



June 26, 2017

Brad Kinnish

Dear Brad:

I am very pleased to inform you that effective June 26, 2017, we have removed "Acting" from your title and you are now Marin Software's Chief Financial Officer. Your compensation will remain as outlined in your original offer letter dated March 16, 2017 and executed by you on March 17, 2017.

While we are a technology company, it is our people that set Marin Software apart and make our company special.  We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your contributions to date and we look forward to working with you to achieve even greater success for the remainder of 2017 and beyond.

Thank you again for your commitment to Marin Software and to our customers.

 

/s/ Christopher Lien

Christopher Lien

Chief Executive Officer

123 Mission Street, 27th Floor  I San Francisco, CA 941051 (415) 399-2580 I (415) 358-6994 (fax) Iwww.marinsoftware.com