alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-19-00122-CR

PATRICK JONES, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 202nd District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 00F0101-202

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Patrick Jones was convicted of aggravated sexual assault and was sentenced to twenty 

years’ incarceration on June 15, 2000, in trial court cause number 00F0101-202. On May 20, 

2019, Jones filed a motion styled “Motion for Judicial Review of Documentation or Instrument 

Purporting to Create a Lien or Claim” in trial court cause number 10F0101-202. The trial court 

entered an order on May 31, 2019, dismissing Jones’ motion for want of jurisdiction.1 Jones timely 

perfected an appeal from the trial court’s order dismissing his motion for want of jurisdiction.

In Texas, a party may only appeal when the Texas Legislature has authorized an appeal. 

Galitz v. State, 617 S.W.2d 949, 951 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). When the Legislature passes such 

authorizing legislation, in addition to granting its citizens that substantive right, it also grants the 

appellate courts of this state jurisdiction to hear such appeals. In the absence of such authorizing 

legislation, appellate courts are without jurisdiction and have no authority to act.

As a general rule, the Texas Legislature has only authorized appeals from written 

judgments of conviction. See Gutierrez v. State, 307 S.W.3d 318, 321 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). 

There are a few very limited exceptions to this general rule, see Wright v. State, 969 S.W.2d 588, 

589 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no pet.), but the trial court’s May 23 order dismissing Jones’ motion 

for want of jurisdiction does not fall within one of those exceptions.

By letter dated July 26, 2019, we informed Jones of the potential jurisdictional issue stemming 

from the lack of an appealable order and provided Jones an opportunity to demonstrate how we have 

 1

In the absence of the filing of a post-judgment motion, the trial court’s plenary power expires thirty days after the 

sentence or appealable order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 21.4; State v. Aguilera, 165 S.W.3d 695, 697–98 (Tex. Crim. App.

2005).
3

jurisdiction notwithstanding the noted defect. Although Jones filed a response to our letter, that 

response did not resolve the jurisdictional defect that prevents us from hearing his appeal. 

Because the trial court’s May 31, 2019, order dismissing Jones’ motion for want of 

jurisdiction does not constitute an appealable order, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. 

Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: August 21, 2019

Date Decided: August 22, 2019

Do Not Publish
Rodney H. HOLMES, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1718

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 01, 2018

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that the above styled appeal is hereby dismissed. *See**Holmes v. State*, 245 So. 3d 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).

ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SALTER and LINDSEY, JJ., concur.
Steven R. KEENE, DOC #T29350, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1064

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 30, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
# C_2022002EN.01000802.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Proceedings brought byA Oy (C-221/20), B Oy (C-223/20)

(Joined Cases C-221/20 and C-223/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Directive 92/83/EEC - Excise duty - Beer - Article 4(2) - Possibility to apply reduced rates of excise duty to beer brewed by independent small breweries - Treatment as a single independent small brewery or as two or more small breweries - Obligation to transpose)

(2022/C 2/11)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: A Oy (C-221/20), B Oy (C-223/20)

Intervening parties: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö

Operative part of the judgment

The second sentence of Article 4(2) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State which applies the possibility, provided for in Article 4(1) thereof, of applying reduced rates of excise duty to beer brewed by independent small breweries is not, however, obliged to treat as a single independent small brewery two or more small cooperating breweries whose combined annual production does not exceed 200 000 hectolitres.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2020.

---
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         December 27, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on December 16, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 544 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-863, K2025-864.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-30847 Filed 12-26-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - (-)multimedia_video(3)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - alaska(12)
              - arizona(12)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(49)
              - colorado(3)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(1)
              - (-)delaware(3)
              - district of columbia(3)
              - florida(3)
              - georgia(1)
              - hawaii(43)
              - idaho(3)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - louisiana(2)
              - maine(3)
              - maryland(5)
              - massachusetts(3)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(4)
              - nevada(5)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(3)
              - new mexico(2)
              - new york(1)
              - north carolina(3)
              - north dakota(3)
              - oregon(6)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - rhode island(1)
              - south carolina(1)
              - south dakota(7)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(5)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(3)
              - virginia(5)
              - washington(16)
              - west virginia(2)
              - wisconsin(8)
              - wyoming(6)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        April 8, 2024        USGS Northeast Region: The Short Story

Featured Films and Shorts        February 21, 2022        USGS Capabilities: Fate and Bioremediation

Featured Films and Shorts        January 7, 2022        USGS Capabilities: Geomorphology
Tiffany Ann MARINO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1099

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 14, 2018.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Floods

Filters

              - science_science(38)
              - (-)products_data(12)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(98)
              - products_web_tools(4)
              - multimedia_image(14)
              - multimedia_image-141771(14)
              - multimedia_video(3)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149248(4)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(7)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(2)
              - american samoa(1)
              - california(7)
              - colorado(11)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(6)
              - district of columbia(1)
              - florida(5)
              - georgia(1)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(2)
              - kansas(3)
              - maine(3)
              - massachusetts(4)
              - montana(3)
              - nevada(1)
              - new hampshire(2)
              - new jersey(8)
              - new mexico(2)
              - (-)new york(12)
              - north carolina(1)
              - oklahoma(3)
              - oregon(1)
              - pennsylvania(4)
              - puerto rico(4)
              - rhode island(6)
              - south carolina(1)
              - u.s. virgin islands(2)
              - vermont(3)
              - virginia(5)
              - washington(2)

## By Year

Data Release        March 5, 2019        Geospatial dataset of flood-inundation maps for Cayuga Inlet, Sixmile Creek, Cascadilla Creek, and Fall Creek at Ithaca, New York

Real-time Data        July 3, 2017        Flood and High Flow Condition (New York)

Real-time Data        July 2, 2017        USGS Flood Event Viewer - Sandy

Data Release        September 20, 2017        Geospatial dataset of bathymetric survey of the Cayuga Inlet flood-control channel and selected tributaries in Ithaca, New York, 2016

Real-time Data        September 22, 2016        Crest-Stage Gage Network (New York)

Real-time Data        July 3, 2017        Climate Change Tool

Real-time Data        June 6, 2017        New York Peak Flows

Real-time Data        September 9, 2016        Map of real-time streamflow compared to historical streamflow for the day of the year

Real-time Data        February 10, 2017        Current Conditions for New York: Precipitation

Real-time Data        April 2, 2016        Sea Level Rise Animation

Data Release        September 23, 2022        MODFLOW-NWT and MODPATH  groundwater flow models of steady-state conditions in coastal Connecticut and  adjacent areas of New York and Rhode Island, as well as a nitrogen transport  model of the Niantic River watershed

Real-time Data        July 3, 2017        Southeastern New York Coastal Monitoring Sites
Silas KENDRICKS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DESOTO CORRECTIONAL INST., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4756

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 31, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The petition for writ of habeas corpus is hereby transferred to the Circuit Court of the Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Florida, case number 2005-CF-4840.

CASANUEVA, LUCAS, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-2837EM

_____________

Sandra A. Hayes, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Marvin T. Runyon, Jr.; United States *

Postal Service; American Postal * [UNPUBLISHED]

Workers Union, *

*

Appellees. *

_____________

 Submitted: March 18, 1999

Filed: March 29, 1999

_____________

Before FAGG, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.

Sandra Hayes appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment in

favor of the United States Postal Service and dismissing Hayes's claims against the

American Postal Workers Union. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties'

briefs, we conclude the district court's rulings were correct, and an extended discussion

is not warranted. We affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B.
2–

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earthquakes

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

Filters

              - science_education(22)
              - science_faqs(118)
              - science_science(411)
              - products_data(220)
              - products_maps(149)
              - products_publications(5605)
              - products_software(48)
              - products_web_tools(35)
              - multimedia_audio(122)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(105)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(17)
              - multimedia_image(1088)
              - multimedia_image-141769(48)
              - multimedia_image-141770(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(861)
              - multimedia_image-141772(15)
              - multimedia_image-141774(9)
              - multimedia_image-141775(101)
              - multimedia_image-141776(49)
              - multimedia_image-204460(1)
              - multimedia_image-207195(3)
              - multimedia_slideshow(13)
              - multimedia_video(384)
              - multimedia_video-149194(127)
              - multimedia_video-149195(159)
              - multimedia_video-149196(31)
              - multimedia_video-149197(7)
              - multimedia_video-149198(23)
              - multimedia_video-149225(1)
              - documents_file(28)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149214(1)
              - (-)documents_file-149217(2)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(23)
              - news_news-149245(54)
              - news_news-149246(15)
              - (-)news_news-149247(1)
              - news_news-149248(46)
              - news_news-149249(13)
              - news_news-149250(101)
              - news_newsletters(15)
              - news_other_news(255)
              - connect_locations(3)
              - connect_social_media(9)
              - connect_staff_profiles(160)
              - other_basic-37(7)
              - other_basic-42(111)

## By Location

## By Year

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

Training Materials        March 27, 2019        Earthquake Effects

Training Materials        May 9, 2019        Table-Top Earthquakes

Employee in the News        May 10, 2016        USGS Scientists Receive Presidential Awards for Research on Earthquakes, Fish Disease, and Paleoclimate
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR YEARS ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND SEPTEMBER 30, 2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH DEL CERRO ENTERPRISES,
INC. 10KSB.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999             MAR-10-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                           1,554                   5,900
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,554                   5,900
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,554                   5,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         8,449                     119
<OTHER-SE>                                     (6,895)                   5,781
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,554                   5,900
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,346                   6,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,346)                 (6,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,346)                 (6,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,346)                 (6,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .00                     .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00                     .00


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6893

EUGENE R. DANIELS, Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GARY MAYNARD, Director; GUARD DURANT; WARDEN ANTHONY; ASSISTANT WARDEN PRIDGEN; R. CHAVIS, Associate Warden; GRIEVANCE CLERK SPRATTLING; GRIEVANCE CLERK JOHNSON; ROBERT WARD; OFFICER HOLLYWAY; OFFICER YOUNG; SERGEANT HODGES; LIEUTENANT BROWN, Defendants - Appellees, and JANE DOE; JOHN DOE, Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-03-451) Submitted: August 26, 2004 Decided: September 3, 2004 Before WIDENER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.- 2 - Eugene R. Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Edgar Lloyd Willcox, II, WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Eugene R. Daniels appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Daniels that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Daniels failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Daniels has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 10.11

                         AMENDMENT TO SUPPLY AGREEMENT

      THIS AMENDMENT TO THE SUPPLY AGREEMENT (the "Amendment") is made and
entered into effective February 26, 2001, by and between Kyocera Wireless
Corp., a Delaware corporation ("KYOCERA") and Brightstar Corporation a, Delaware
corporation ("Purchaser"), with respect to the following facts:

                                    RECITALS

A.    KYOCERA and Purchaser previously entered into that certain Supply
Agreement dated September 1, 2000 (the "Agreement").

B.    By this Amendment, KYOCERA and Purchaser desire to amend the Supply
Agreement as hereinafter set forth.

                                   AGREEMENT

      NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the promises set forth herein,
KYOCERA and Purchaser agree as follows:

1.    The definition of "Territory" in the Agreement is hereby amended to
include Mexico.

2.    Except as modified by this Amendment, the Agreement shall continue in full
force and effect as written.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the
date first set forth above.

KYOCERA WIRELESS CORP.                    BRIGHTSTAR CORPORATION

By: /s/ Masahiro Inove                    By: /s/ R. Marcelo Claure
    ----------------------------------        ----------------------------------
                Signature                               Signature

         Masahiro Inove                            Raul Marcelo Claure
--------------------------------------    --------------------------------------
              Name Typed                              Name Typed

                  CEO                                President-CEO
--------------------------------------    --------------------------------------
                 Title                                   Title

                                       1