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

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-21-00578-CR

IN RE Elio Enay RUDAMAS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: February 2, 2022

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On December 22, 2021, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial 

court’s “order appointing judges under Texas Government Code section 26.024.” We issued an 

order requesting a response. The State filed an initial response on January 4, 2022 and an amended 

response on January 11, 2022. Relator filed replies on January 6, 2022 and January 12, 2022.

We may issue writs of mandamusto correct an abuse of discretion, but only when agreeable 

to principles of law. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b). To establish a right to mandamus

relief in a criminal case, a relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to 

establish the trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. See

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 11304-CR, styled State of Texas v. Elio Enay Rudamas, pending in the

County Court, Kinney County, Texas, the Honorable Tully Shahan presiding.
04-21-00578-CR

- 2 -

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A); id. 52.6(a)(1); see also In re Soliz, No. 04-18-00565-CR, 2018 WL 

3998463, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 22, 2018, orig. proceeding).

Here, relator did not provide this court with a copy of the trial court’s order or other written 

document appointing new judges to assist in Kinney County. Because relator did not provide this 

court with a sufficient record, relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
Richard L. BISHOP, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6799.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 18, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
#### UNITED STATES Of America, Appellee, v. Frederick BROWNE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-1239.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 3, 2004.

Marjorie M. Smith, Englander *&*Smith, Tappan, NY, for Appellant.

Amy K. Orange, Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (David N. Kelley, United States Attorney, Gary Stein, Assistant United States Attorney), New York, NY, for Appellee, of counsel.

Present: McLAUGHLIN, SACK, Circuit Judges, and GERSHON, District Judge.*

*

 Of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the appeal be, and it hereby is, DISMISSED.

Defendant-appellant Frederick Browne was convicted of possessing with intent to distribute and distributing crack cocaine, *41in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(C). Because he qualified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, Browne’s sentence was increased more than four fold from what it would have been had the instant offense been his first conviction. On appeal, Browne argues that the district court erred in denying his application for a downward departure. We disagree.

“A defendant’s contention that the sentencing court should have granted a downward departure is ordinarily not a proper matter for appeal, unless the refusal to depart resulted from an erroneous interpretation of law, or was based on the court’s erroneous view of the extent of its departure authority.” *United States v. Labeille-Soto,*163 F.3d 93, 100 (2d Cir. 1998) (citations omitted). We generally presume that the district court is aware of its authority to depart. *United States v. Gonzalez,*281 F.3d 38, 42 (2d Cir.2002). This presumption is overcome only “where there is ‘clear evidence of a substantial risk that the judge misapprehended the scope of his departure authority.’” *Id.*(quoting *United States v. Brown,*98 F.3d 690, 694 (2d Cir.1996)).

We are satisfied on the basis of the record before us that the district court understood its authority to depart and considered both a vertical and a horizontal departure before deciding ultimately to deny the defendant either. Despite the defendant’s contentions to the contrary, nothing in *United States v. Mishoe,*241 F.3d 214 (2d Cir.2001), requires the district court to depart downward when the career offender sentence is more than four times the original sentence.

For the foregoing reasons, Browne’s appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Sergio VELEZ-RIVAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9613.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Charles Joseph KERNS, Sr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-9729.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 12, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Justice KAGAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
Hilario CORONADO-MEZA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 13-6657.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 4, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
Anthony Wayne SEDA, petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF the ARMY.

No. 12-9458.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 21 (Monday, February 3, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8816-8817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-02104]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Decentralized Storage Alliance Association

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 9, 2024, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Decentralized Storage 
Alliance Association (``DSAA'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Western Digital Technologies, Inc., San 
Jose, CA; Curio Storage, Inc., Ethridge, TN; and The Decentralized AI 
Society (DAIS), Lewes, DE, have been added as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research

[[Page 8817]]

project remains open, and DSAA intends to file additional written 
notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On August 1, 2023, DSAA filed its original notification pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice 
in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on October 
6, 2023 (88 FR 69670).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 1, 
2024. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on September 26, 2024 (89 FR 78904).

Suzanne Morris,
Deputy Director Civil Enforcement Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2025-02104 Filed 1-31-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```
TARRANT REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT, petitioner, v. Rudolf John HERRMANN, et al.

No. 11-889.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 12, 2013.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
Skip to main content
          Skip to FDA Search
          Skip to in this section menu
          Skip to footer links


U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government

					Here’s how you know
          			Dot gov**The .gov means it’s official.**Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.
							      SSL**The site is secure.** The **https://** ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely. 
			U.S. Food and Drug Administration
				
        Search
            Menu
							
						Search FDA
									
									Submit search 
		Featured
							Contact FDA
	                FDA Guidance Documents
	                Recalls, Market Withdrawals and Safety Alerts
	                Press Announcements
	                Warning Letters
	                Advisory Committees
	                En Español

					Products
            Food
							Drugs
							Medical Devices
							Radiation-Emitting Products
							Vaccines, Blood, and Biologics
							Animal and Veterinary
							Cosmetics
							Tobacco ProductsTopics
            About FDA
							Combination Products
							Regulatory Information
							Safety
							Emergency Preparedness
							International Programs
							News and Events
							Training and Continuing Education
							Inspections and Compliance
							Science and ResearchInformation For
            Consumers
	            Patients
	            Industry
	            Health Professionals
	            Federal, State and Local Officials 
 In this section:

                Historical Status of OTC Rulemakings

Historical Status of OTC Rulemakings Home
          Drugs
          Development & Approval Process | Drugs
          How Drugs are Developed and Approved
          Over-the-Counter OTC | Nonprescription Drugs
          Historical Status of OTC Rulemakings
          Rulemaking History for Pediatric Dosing of OTC Drug ProductsHistorical Status of OTC Rulemakings Rulemaking History for Pediatric Dosing of OTC Drug Products
  
  	
    Share
    Post
    Linkedin

    Email
    Print**Pediatric Dosing of OTC Drug Products**

Advance Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking
			Date
			*FR* CitationAdvance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Dosing for children under 12 years
			6/20/1988
			53FR23180Request for Comment: Advisory Committee meeting
			12/21/1994
			59FR65738

                                                                                  Content current as of:
      09/21/2017Historical Status of OTC Rulemakings
 
 Footer Links
    FDA Archive
          About FDA
          Accessibility
      Visitor Information
          Website Policies / Privacy
          No FEAR Act
          Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
      FOIA
          HHS.gov
          USA.gov
    Contact FDA
      Follow FDA on Facebook
      Follow FDA on X
      Follow FDA on Instagram
      Follow FDA on LinkedIn
      View FDA videos on YouTube
      Subscribe to FDA RSS feeds
    FDA Homepage
    Contact Number
      1-888-INFO-FDA (1-888-463-6332) Back toTop
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 96 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26757-26758]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12287]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
[CGD 95-038]


Towing Safety Advisory Committee; Request for Applications

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard is seeking applicants for appointment to 
membership on the Towing Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC).

DATES: Completed applications and resumes must be received by July 14, 
1995. Application forms may be obtained by contacting the Assistant 
Executive Director at the address below.

ADDRESSES: To request an application either call (202) 267-2997 and 
give your name and mailing address or write to Commandant (G-MTH-4), 
U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street, SW., Room 1304 Washington, DC 
20593-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LTJG Patrick J. DeShon, Assistant 
Executive Director, TSAC, Commandant (G-MTH-4), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 
Second Street, SW., Room 1304, Washington, DC 20593-0001, (202) 267-
2997.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This Committee is a 16 member Federal 
Advisory Committee that advises the Secretary of Transportation on 
matters related to shallow-draft inland and coastal waterway navigation 
and towing safety. The Committee will meet at least twice a year in 
Washington, DC or another location selected by the U.S. Coast Guard.
    The applications will be considered for nine expiring terms as 
follows: Three [[Page 26758]] members from the barge and towing 
industry, reflecting a geographical balance; one member from the 
offshore mineral and oil supply vessel industry; one member from port 
districts, authorities or terminal operators; one member from maritime 
labor; one member from shipping; and two members from the general 
public.
    Those persons applying for a position representing the general 
public will be required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure 
Report (CFDR) for identification of existing financial conflicts and 
will not be considered without a CFDR on file. Applicants to the public 
positions should identify themselves when requesting applications to 
ensure that a CFDR is forwarded with the other application materials. 
The completed report must be submitted with their applications and 
resubmitted each year thereafter if appointed.
    To achieve the balance of membership required by the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, the U.S. Coast Guard is especially interested 
in receiving applications from minorities, and women.
    Those persons who have submitted previous applications must reapply 
as no applications received prior to this solicitation will be 
considered.

    Dated: May 10, 1995.
G.N. Naccara,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Marine Safety, 
Security and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 95-12287 Filed 5-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 37   filed 06/19/14   page 1 of 4

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 37   filed 06/19/14   page 2 of 4

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 37   filed 06/19/14   page 3 of 4

case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM   document 37   filed 06/19/14   page 4 of 4
David Nathaniel JOHNSON, petitioner, v. MICHIGAN.

No. 12-9019.

Supreme Court of the United States

July 22, 2013.

Petition for rehearing denied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 27561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12677]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1943--Unixware Technology Group Inc.

    Notice is here given that, on March 28, 1995, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), UnixWare Technology Group Inc. 
(UTG) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney 
General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its 
membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances. Specially, the identities 
of the new members are: Hitachi, Ltd., Atsugi-Shi, JAPAN; Pyramid 
Technology Corp., San Francisco, CA; Super Computer Inc. Eau Claire, 
WI; and Sybase Inc., Emeryville, CA.
    No other changes have been made in either membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership remains open and UTG 
plans to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in 
membership.
    On July 19, 1994, UnixWare Technology Group, Inc., filed its 
original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15305).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 12, 
1994. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on April 13, 1995 (60 FR 18858).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-12677 Filed 5-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Doyle Randall PAROLINE, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, et al.

No. 12-8561.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* granted. Order entered June 10, 2013, vacated.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 91 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25214-25215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11609]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-271-000]


Transwestern Pipeline Company; Notice of Stipulation and 
Agreement

May 5, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 2, 1995, pursuant to Rule 602 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, Transwestern Pipeline 
Company (Transwestern) tendered for [[Page 25215]] filing a Stipulation 
and Agreement and related Appendices to the filing, together with an 
explanatory statement and workpapers.
    Transwestern states that copies of the filing have been served to 
all parties to the proceedings in Docket Nos. RP93-34-000, et al.; 
RP94-227-000, et all.; CP94-211, et al.; CP94-254-000; CP94-676-000; 
CP94-751-000, et al.; CP95-70-000; CP95-153-000; CP95-378-000; and 
CP95-112-000 in addition to all other persons whom Transwestern is 
required to serve in accordance with Commission Rule 602(d). Initial 
comments on the settlement are due on or before May 22, 1995, and reply 
comments are due on or before June 1, 1995.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should 
be filed on or before May 12, 1995. Any persons who have already been 
granted intervention in the following dockets (Docket Nos. RP93-34-000, 
et al.; RP94-227-000, et al.; CP94-211, et al.; CP94-254-000; CP94-676-
000; CP94-751-000, et al.; CP95-70-000; CP95-153-000; CP95-378-000; and 
CP95-112-000) are automatically parties to the above-captioned 
proceeding, and need not file additional petitions to intervene in the 
above-captioned proceeding. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the public reference room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-11609 Filed 5-10-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.1








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




















In connection with the Annual Report of First Guaranty Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K as of and for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alton B. Lewis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of my knowledge:





(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 Company.


























/s/ Alton B. Lewis


Alton B. Lewis


Chief Executive Officer


March 31, 2010
Earl Eugene CANNEDY, Jr., petitioner, v. Jeffrey BEARD, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

No. 12-9496.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 13, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Elijah JACKSON, Jr., petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.

No. 12-8885.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 29, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-11237 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus NICOLAS LYKOGIORGOS, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:01-CR-6-1

-------------------- February 27, 2002 Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Nicolas Lykogiorgos has moved for leave to withdraw, filing a motion and brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Lykogiorgos has filed a pro se response. The record has not been adequately developed for this court to consider Lykogiorgos’ ineffective assistance of counsel claims in this direct appeal. See United States v. Higdon , 832 F.2d 312, 314 (5th Cir. 1987). Our independent review of the record, counsel’s Anders motion and brief, and Lykogiorgos’ pro se response discloses noNo. 01-11237 -2- nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION(pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter endedJune 30, 2003 of Boeing Capital Corporation (the “Company”) as filed withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) on the datehereof (the “Report”) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Steven W. Vogeding, VicePresident and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, that:

 

(1)                                  the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)                                  the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| August 4, 2003 | /S/ STEVEN W. VOGEDING                                          |   |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                | Steven W.  Vogeding  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Boeing Capital Corporation and will beretained by Boeing Capital Corporation and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----