alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
February 7, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GINGER DEEANNA FISHER, Appellant

NO. 14-11-01030-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   2-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,500
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  123,375
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               125,875
<PP&E>                                       1,934,146
<DEPRECIATION>                                 191,217
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,962,556
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,721,549
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     241,007
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,962,556
<SALES>                                        149,447
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               149,447
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,881
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 68,362
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             68,362
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    68,362
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6354

LYNWOOD HERBERT JARELS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE M. MCMILLAN, Sheriff of Roanoke City

Jail; U. S. MARSHAL,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District

Judge. (CA-98-87-R)

Submitted: July 14, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998

Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lynwood Herbert Jarels, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Lynwood Herbert Jarels appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) and Bivens

v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388

(1971) complaint without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice

is not reviewable by the court unless the reasons stated for the

dismissal clearly disclose that no amendment to the complaint could

cure its defects. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local

Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). In the present

case, the district court properly found that Jarels failed to

allege all of the elements necessary to support his claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. Because Jarels could

possibly cure these defects by amending his complaint, we dismiss

this appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1211

AN ACT

To provide permanent authority for the administration of

au pair programs.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR AU PAIR PRO4 GRAMS.

5 Section 1(b) of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to extend

6 au pair programs’’, approved December 23, 1995 (Public

7 Law 104–72; 109 Stat. 776) is amended by striking ‘‘,

8 through fiscal year 1997’’.

Passed the Senate September 25, 1997.

Attest:

Secretary.
105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1211

AN ACT

To provide permanent authority for the

administration of au pair programs.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 163 (Thursday, August 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 47628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18408]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[RTID 0648-XB366]


New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is 
scheduling a public meeting of its Herring Advisory Panel via webinar 
to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive 
economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to 
the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

DATES: This webinar will be held on Monday, September 13, 2021, at 1 
p.m. Webinar registration URL information: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/114900480833046795.

ADDRESSES: 
    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water 
Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, 
New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda

    The Herring Advisory Panel will review and select final preferred 
alternatives for Framework 9, an action considering a rebuilding plan 
and potential adjustments to herring accountability measures. They will 
discuss initial work priorities for 2022 specific to the Herring 
Fishery Management Plan. The Council will consider these 
recommendations at the September Council meeting. Other business may be 
discussed, as necessary.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come 
before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject 
of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted 
to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues 
arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action 
under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public 
has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to 
address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting 
will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the 
recording is available upon request.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-
0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 23, 2021.
Tracey L. Thompson,
Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National 
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-18408 Filed 8-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

## Filings Instituting Proceedings

*Docket Numbers:*                     RP21-1037-000.                

*Applicants:*                     Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.                

*Description:*                     § 4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel Retention Rates—Winter 2021 to be effective 10/1/2021.                

*Filed Date:*                     8/18/21.                

*Accession Number:*                     20210818-5021.                

*Comment Date:*                     5 p.m. ET 8/30/21.                

                    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (                    *https://elibrary.ferc.gov/​idmws/​search/​fercgensearch.asp*) by querying the docket number.                

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

                    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:                     *http://www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​efiling/​filing-req.pdf.*                     For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.                

Dated: August 19, 2021.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-18296 Filed 8-24-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>    0001000015
<NAME>   META GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                          <C>             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS         6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                 APR-01-1999     JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   JUN-30-1999     JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                       1                  1
<CASH>                                0              2,583
<SECURITIES>                          0             18,595
<RECEIVABLES>                         0             35,079
<ALLOWANCES>                          0               (702)
<INVENTORY>                           0                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      0             53,649
<PP&E>                                0             10,198
<DEPRECIATION>                        0             (3,707)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        0             91,403
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 0             37,119
<BONDS>                               0                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0                  0
<PREFERRED>                           0                  0
<COMMON>                              0                107
<OTHER-SE>                            0             54,177
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          0             91,403
<SALES>                          24,111             44,216
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 24,111             44,216
<CGS>                            12,883             24,169
<TOTAL-COSTS>                    12,883             24,169
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  8,545             15,913
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    0                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   3,474              5,697
<INCOME-TAX>                     (1,426)            (2,340)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               2,048              3,357
<DISCONTINUED>                        0                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0                  0
<CHANGES>                             0                  0
<NET-INCOME>                       2,048             3,357
<EPS-BASIC>                        .19               .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                        .18               .28




</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SYBRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          10,874
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  127,849
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,429
<INVENTORY>                                    120,317
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               282,640
<PP&E>                                         170,151
<DEPRECIATION>                                 123,429
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 974,613
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          138,767
<BONDS>                                        521,640
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           469
<OTHER-SE>                                     282,610
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   974,613
<SALES>                                        674,457
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               674,457
<CGS>                                          337,830
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  199,894
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   284
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              35,523
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                100,926
<INCOME-TAX>                                    43,342
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             57,584
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    57,584
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.20
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-23-00882-CR

Wesley HENDERSON,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CR4006

Honorable Kevin M. O’Connell, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Irene Rios, Justice

Beth Watkins, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 13, 2023

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

A timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of a court of appeals. 

Taylor v. State, 424 S.W.3d 39, 43 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). “A defendant’s notice of appeal is 

timely if filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended, or within ninety 

days after sentencing if the defendant timely files a motion for new trial.” Id. (citing TEX. R. APP.

P. 26.2(a)).

The trial court imposed sentence in the underlying cause on June 30, 2023. Because 

appellant timely filed a motion for new trial, the notice of appeal was due to be filed on 
04-23-00882-CR

- 2 -

September 28, 2023. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(2). A motion for extension of time to file the notice 

of appeal was due on October 13, 2023. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3. Appellant filed his notice of appeal 

on October 3, 2023, but did not file a motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal. 

“When a notice of appeal is filed within the fifteen-day period [after the notice of appeal is due] 

but no timely motion for extension of time is filed, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction.” Olivo 

v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996).

On October 24, 2023, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be 

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In his response, appellant concedes the notice of appeal is 

untimely; however, appellant requests we grant him leave to file an out-of-time notice of appeal. 

We do not have jurisdiction to grant leave to file an out-of-time appeal. See Constancio v. State, 

No. 04-00-00248-CR, 2000 WL 1154629, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 16, 2000, no pet.) 

(mem. op., not designated for publication). “The appellant in a criminal case may pursue an outof-time appeal by filing a writ of habeas corpus with the Court of Criminal Appeals.” Id.; see also 

Charles v. State, 809 S.W.2d 574, 576 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1991, no writ) (“Under the 

circumstances of this case, the appropriate procedure would be a post-conviction writ of habeas 

corpus seeking an out-of-time appeal.”). Accordingly, appellant’s motion for leave to file an outof-time appeal is denied and we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    About BHNRC
                        About Us
                                    Welcome to BHNRC
                                    FAQ
                                    History
                                    Directions to BHNRC
                                    Documents and Information
                    BHNRC Home PageSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home People & Locations







Janice R Forrest
                        Office of The Director

                        




                        
                        Program Analyst
                        Phone: (301) 504-8157
                        
                        
                        Fax: (Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### Richard Max Strahan vs. Superior Court Department of the Trial Court for the County of Suffolk & others.1

November 7, 2008.

*Supreme Judicial Court,*

Superintendence of inferior courts, Appeal from order of single justice.

1

 Martin Fantozzi and two Associate Justices of the Superior Court.

Richard Max Strahan appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court denying his petition, pursuant to G. L. c. 211, § 3. That petition sought relief from a summons compelling Strahan’s attendance at a contempt proceed*1018ing in the Superior Court, cancellation of that proceeding, a stay of the proceeding while the petition was pending, and sanctions. A Superior Court judge previously had denied Strahan’s request to “revoke” the same summons, treating the request as a motion to dismiss the complaint for contempt.

The case was submitted on the papers filed, accompanied by a memorandum of law.

*Richard Max Strahan,*pro se.

*Martin M. Fantozzi & Michael S. Rabieh*for BP Prucenter Acquisition, LLC.

The principal relief requested in the petition also was requested from and denied by the Superior Court judge. To the extent the petition challenges an interlocutory order of the Superior Court, S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001), applies. Under that rule, Strahan was required to file a memorandum “setting] forth the reasons why review of the trial court decision cannot adequately be obtained on appeal from any final adverse judgment or by other available means.” *Id.*The “brief” filed in this court fails to make that showing.2 To the extent the petition also seeks relief not based on any interlocutory ruling in the Superior Court, the rule does not apply.

In either event, we can determine, based on the record before us, that the single justice neither erred nor abused his discretion in denying relief. *Loftfield*v. *Ferreira,*440 Mass. 1012 (2003); *Bloise*v. *Bloise,*437 Mass. 1010, 1010 (2002). Exercise of the court’s extraordinary power under G. L. c. 211, § 3, properly is denied absent a demonstration by the petitioner of both a “substantial claim of violation of a substantive right and that the violation could not have been remedied in the normal course of a trial and appeal or by other available means.” *Gorod*v. *Tabachnick,*428 Mass. 1001, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1003 (1998). Strahan failed to make that showing. Among other things, Strahan may appeal from any adverse final judgment. See *Cousino*v. *Commonwealth,*450 Mass. 1010 (2007) (relief from improper denial of summons remediable in ordinary appellate process); *Scott-Jones*v. *Qing Lu,*447 Mass. 1006, 1006 (2006) (“judgment of civil contempt is an appealable final judgment”); *Society of Jesus of New England*v. *Commonwealth,*442 Mass. 1049 (2004).3

*Judgment affirmed.*

2

 Strahan’s filing in this court is in the form of a brief, rather than a memorandum and appendix pursuant to S.J.C. Rule 2:21, as amended, 434 Mass. 1301 (2001). Noncompliance with the rule, where it applies, is itself a reason not to disturb the single justice’s judgment.

3

 We do not address claims raised before the single justice but not pursued on appeal.