alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-40,402-02

EX PARTE FRANK PHILLIP MCNABB, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR18-0455-01 IN THE 415TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM PARKER COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Applicant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver more

than four grams, lessthan two hundred grams, and sentenced to sixty-five years’ imprisonment. The

Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. McNabb v. State, No. 07-19-00225-CR (Tex.

App. — Amarillo, Aug. 12, 2020). Applicant filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus in the

county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. SeeTEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

art. 11.07.

Applicant contendsthat appellate counselfailed to timelyinformApplicant that his conviction

had been affirmed and advise him of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Based

on the record, the trial court has determined that Applicant was not timely notified of the affirmance
2

of his conviction and was deprived of his right to file a petition for discretionary review, and,

therefore, Applicant is entitled to an out-of-time petition for discretionary review.

Relief is granted. Ex parte Crow, 180 S.W.3d 135 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Applicant may

file an out-of-time petition for discretionary review of the judgment of the Seventh Court of Appeals

in cause number 08-19-00225-CR. Should Applicant decide to file a petition for discretionary

review, he must file it with this Court within thirty days from the date of this Court’s mandate.

Copies ofthis opinion shall be sent to the Texas Department ofCriminalJustice–Correctional

Institutions Division and the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

Delivered: April 14, 2021

Do not publish
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 connection with the Quarterly Report of Northwest Pipe Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephanie J. Welty, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



|(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 result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                              
|----------------------------------------------
|/s/ Stephanie J. Welty                        
|Stephanie J. Welty                            
|Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer
|November 7, 2008
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20809-20810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9630]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL00-54-000]


Unicom Investments, Inc.; Notice of Filing

April 12, 2000.
    Take notice that on March 29, 2000, Unicom Investments, Inc. (UII), 
on behalf of itself and certain grantor trusts, business trusts or 
limited liability companies or partnerships of limited liability 
companies of which UII would be the sole beneficiary or member, filed 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a letter clarifying that 
the facilities leased under the lease/leaseback transactions described 
in its Petition of March 17, 2000 may include associated step-up 
transformers and/or interconnecting transmission facilities.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before April 21, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. 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. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm 

[[Page 20810]]

(call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-9630 Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
ex10-30_f10k12312009.htm


    Exhibit
10.29

     

    
       

      
        	
                OIS

                221
      Lathrop Way, Suite I

                Sacramento, CA
      95815  

                USA   

              	
                www.oisi.com

                main 088.338.8436

                fax 916.646.0207

                 

              


      

            

    

     

    


    October
30, 2009

    VIA
Facsimile and mail

    


    William
D. Greer

    4805
Nevada Avenue

    Nashville,
TN 37209

    


    


    Re:           Ophthalmic Imaging Systems Board
Membership

    


    


    Dear
Bill:

    


    The
following has been changed to your OIS Board Membership Agreement dated August
31, 2007 to outline your new compensation structure:

    


    Effective
October 1, 2009,

    


    The
Company will pay an annual retainer in the amount of $20,000, payable in
4  equal quarterly installments of  $5,000.  The
Company will also reimburse for travel expenses according to the Company’s
travel policy.

    


    Please
indicate your formal acceptance of the foregoing by signing and dating where
indicated below.  At your earliest convenience, please return via
facsimile the executed copy of page 2 to the attention of Mr. Gil Allon at the
Company’s offices at (916) 565-0415.

    


    Again,
thank you for your continued efforts as a board member during this very exciting
time for the Company.

    


    Very
truly yours,

    


    /s/ Uri Ram            
                                                      

    Uri
Ram

    Chairman
of the Board of Directors

    Ophthalmic
Imaging Systems

    


    


    Approved:

    


    /s/ William D. Greer         
                                                      

    William
D. Greer

    


    Date :
11/17/09

     

     

     

       

      
        	Better
      Insight.  Better Sight.
#### Den *ex dem. against*Wood and others.

The affidavit to show that a witness lives out of the state, and thereby to obtain a commission for the examination of such witness, need not be taken on notice.

The commission may be opened by a judge in vacation.

An order for the issuing of the commission, of itself, stays the proceedings.

*74Wall, applied for a commission, to take the examination of a witness in this cause, and offered to read an affidavit.

*L. Q. C. Elmer,*objected to the reading of the affidavit,., because it had not been taken or notice to plaintiff’s attorney.

Ch. Justice.

No notice of the taking an affidavit, -to-prove the absence of a witness out of the state, to found an application for a commission need be given, to authorize the reading of the affidavit on the application. It does not stand on the same ground as an application to change the venue. The affidavit may be read.

*Elmer,*then objected, that the granting of the commission would delay the cause beyond the next circuit, which would be held before the commission could be returned to this court to be opened.

Ch. Justice. The commission may be opened by the-judge in vacation; and it is not necessary that it should be returned to the Supreme Court to be opened.

An order for the issuing of the commission of itself, stays the proceedings, unless there is something in the order,, authorizing the suit to proceed in the mean time.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,511,517
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,511,517
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,797,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,542
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,572
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,797,814
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   195
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,020
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,603
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,428)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (16,428)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (16,428)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (16,428)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (16.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (16.43)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021393EN.01000601.xml

| 29.9.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 393/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.9.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 393/6

---

Notice for the attention of certain persons subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 and in Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela

(2021/C 393/06)

The following information is brought to the attention of Mr. Rafael Ramón BLANCO MARRERO (No 20), Mr. Hannover Esteban GUERRERO MIJARES (No 25), Ms Gladys del Valle REQUENA (No 27), Ms Tania Valentina DÍAZ GONZÁLEZ (No 28), Mr. Elvis Eduardo HIDROBO AMOROSO (No 29), Mr. Luis Eduardo PARRA RIVERO (No 34), Mr. Franklyn Leonardo DUARTE (No 35), Mr. José Gregorio NORIEGA FIGUEROA (No 36), Mr. Remigio CEBALLOS ICHASO (No 37), Mr. Luis Fernando DAMIANI BUSTILLOS (No 41), Ms Lourdes Benicia SUÁREZ ANDERSON (No 42), Mr. Calixto Antonio ORTEGA RÍOS (No 43), Mr. René Alberto DEGRAVES ALMARZA (No 44), Mr. Arcadio DELGADO ROSALES (No 45), Ms Carmen Auxiliadora ZULETA DE MERCHÁN (No 46), Ms Indira Maira ALFONZO IZAGUIRRE (No 47), Mr. Leonardo Enrique MORALES POLEO (No 48), Mr. Carlos Ramón Enrique CARVALLO GUEVARA (N 51), Mr. Carlos Enrique TERÁN HURTADO (No 53), Mr. Douglas Arnoldo RICO GONZÁLEZ (No 55) , persons appearing in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 (1) and in Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 (2) concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela.

The Council intends to maintain the restrictive measures against the above-mentioned persons with new statements of reasons. Those persons are hereby informed that they may submit a request to the Council to obtain the intended statement of reasons for maintaining their designation, by 6 October 2021, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| RELEX.1.C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

RELEX.1.C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The persons concerned may submit at any time a request to the Council, together with any supporting documentation, that the decision to include and maintain them on the list should be reconsidered, to the address provided above. Such requests will be considered when they are received. In this respect, the attention of the persons concerned is drawn to the regular review by the Council according to Article 13 of Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074.

---

(1)  OJ L 295 14.11.2017, p. 60.

(2)  OJ L 295 14.11.2017, p. 21.

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Clarence CALLIES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-50213

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 13, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John F. Carroll, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Clarence Callies, Big Spring, TX, pro se.

Before DAVIS, SMITH and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Clarence Callies, federal prisoner # 13001-180, is serving a total term of 240 months of imprisonment for conspiracy to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine and possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of crack cocaine. He appeals the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, wherein he sought a reduction of sentence based on the retroactive amendments to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1, the Sentencing Guideline for crack cocaine offenses.

The government has moved for summary affirmance, arguing that Callies was not eligible for a sentencing reduction because he was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum. Callies argues this case should be remanded to the district court so it may resentence him under the provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act (FSA), which became effective during the pendency of the instant appeal. *See*Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. No. Ill— 220,124 Stat. 2372 (2010).

Section 3582(c)(2) permits a district court to reduce a term of imprisonment *267when it is based upon a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by an amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines, if such a reduction is consistent with the policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. *See Dillon v. United States,*— U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2683, 2691, 177 L.Ed.2d 271 (2010). We review a district court’s denial of a reduction of sentence under Section 3582(c)(2) for an abuse of discretion, its interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines *de novo,*and its findings of fact for clear error. *United States v. Evans,*587 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir.2009), *cert. denied,*— U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 3462, 177 L.Ed.2d 1064 (2010).

Callies has not shown that the district court erred in determining that he was ineligible for a reduction of sentence because he was sentenced to the statutory mandatory minimum. *See United States v. Carter,*595 F.3d 575, 578-79 (5th Cir. 2010). Callies’ argument that the FSA should be retroactively applied to his case is without merit. The Federal Savings Clause precludes retroactive application of the FSA. *United States v. Doggins,*633 F.3d 379, 384 (5th Cir.2011).

The government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. The government’s motion for an extension of time to file a brief is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA
, Appellant,

v.

DEONATH SOOKRAJ
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 14

- 3018

[ January 6, 2016 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Kenneth A. Gottlieb , Judge; L.T. Case No. 14

- 001249MM10A

.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Angela E. Noble, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

No brief filed for appellee.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

P ER C URIAM

.

We grant the motion for rehearing, withdraw our prior order, and substitute this opinion in its place.

We reverse the county court’s order finding the mandatory $5,000 civil penalty imposed for solicitation of prostitution under Section 796.07(6),

Florida St atutes (2014), to be unconstitutionally excessive. See State v.

Jones , Case No. 4D14

- 3019 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 2, 2015). Because Sookraj had pled not guilty to the charge of solicitation of prostitution when the county court issued the order, we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and Remanded.

C IKLIN
, C.J., T

AYLOR and C ONNER

, JJ., concur.

* * *2

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### NUTTING, Respondent, v. PELL et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

October 13, 1896.)

Action by Lee Nutting against Albert W. Pell, Arthur O. Pell, and William Pell,' Jr.

No opinion. Order reversed, and motion denied, with costs. All concur.
# C_2021524EN.01001501.xml

| 29.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 524/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 524/15

---

Commission notice pursuant to Article 16(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 524/04)

| Member State | Italy |
| --- | --- |
| Routes concerned | | Alghero - Rome Fiumicino and vice versa |

Member State

Italy

Routes concerned

Alghero - Rome Fiumicino and vice versa

| | Alghero - Milan Linate and vice versa |
| --- | --- |

Alghero - Milan Linate and vice versa

| | Cagliari - Rome Fiumicino and vice versa |
| --- | --- |

Cagliari - Rome Fiumicino and vice versa

| | Cagliari - Milan Linate and vice versa |
| --- | --- |

Cagliari - Milan Linate and vice versa

| | Olbia - Rome Fiumicino and vice versa |
| --- | --- |

Olbia - Rome Fiumicino and vice versa

| | Olbia - Milan Linate and vice versa |
| --- | --- |

Olbia - Milan Linate and vice versa

Date of entry into force of the public service obligations

15 May 2022

Address from which the text and any information and/or documentation relating to the public service obligations can be obtained

For further information:

| Autonomous Region of Sardinia |
| --- |
| Department of Transport |
| Directorate-General for Transport |
| Unit for Maritime and Air Transport and Territorial Continuity |
| Via XXIX Novembre 1847, 27- 41 |
| 09123 Cagliari |
| ITALIA |

Autonomous Region of Sardinia

Department of Transport

Directorate-General for Transport

Unit for Maritime and Air Transport and Territorial Continuity

Via XXIX Novembre 1847, 27- 41

09123 Cagliari

ITALIA

Tel. +39 0706067331

Fax +39 0706067309

Internet: http://www.regione.sardegna.it

| Email: | trasporti@pec.regione.sardegna.it |
| --- | --- |
| | trasp.osp@regione.sardegna.it |

Email:

trasporti@pec.regione.sardegna.it

trasp.osp@regione.sardegna.it

---
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 75 (Tuesday, April 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20823-20824]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9601]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or To Acquire Companies That Are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec. 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all 
bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information 
Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than May 2, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice 
President) 411

[[Page 20824]]

Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
    1. National Commerce Bancorporation, Memphis, Tennessee; through 
its existing wholly owned nonbank subsidiary, TransPlatinum Service 
Corp., Nashville, Tennessee, to acquire Prime Financial Services, Inc., 
Dresden, Tennessee, and thereby engage in factoring activities, 
pursuant to Sec. 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, April 12, 
2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-9601 Filed 4-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1805
GOLDIE M. SUTHERLAND, Widow of James T. Sutherland, Petitioner,

versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; MULLINS COAL COMPANY; WEST VIRGINIA COAL-WORKERS' PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board (02-449-BLA) Submitted: January 15, 2004 Decided: January 27, 2004 Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Goldie M. Sutherland, Petitioner Pro Se. Michelle Seyman Gerdano, Patricia May Nece, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Robert Weinberger, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Goldie M. Sutherland seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and orders affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2000) and denying reconsideration. Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Sutherland v. DOWCP , No. 02-449-BLA (BRB June 6, 2003). 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