alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion Granted; Order filed June 18, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00385-CV

____________

WILLIAM CARL WOOLEY, Appellant

V.

RANDY SCHAFFER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2013-05833

ORDER

On April 22, 2013, appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal from the trial 

court’s order signed April 3, 2013, dismissing the underlying suit. Unless excused 

by statute or rule, an appellant must pay the required filing fees when filing a 

notice of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 5 (requiring parties to pay the filing fees at 

the time an item is presented for filing); see also Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(c) (requiring 

that an affidavit of indigence be filed before or with the notice of appeal). The 

appellate filing fee has not been paid. On May 21, 2013, this court notified 
2

appellant that the filing fee was past due and the appeal was subject to dismissal 

unless the fee was paid within 10 days.

On May 29, 2013, appellant filed a motion for an extension of time to 

proceed in forma pauperis. He included an affidavit of indigence and a copy of the 

printout showing the balance in his inmate trust fund account. 

Pursuant to the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 

20.1(d)(2), this court forwarded a copy of appellant’s affidavit to the trial court 

clerk and court reporter. The clerk, court reporter, or any party may challenge an 

affidavit in the court in which the affidavit was filed. Tex. R. App. P. 20.1(e). The 

court advised in its notice that any contest to appellant’s affidavit of indigence was 

required to be filed in this court on or before June 10, 2013. See id. No contest was 

filed by the deadline. Unless a contest is timely filed, the affidavit’s allegations 

will be deemed true, and appellant will be allowed to proceed without advance 

payment of costs. See id. 20.1(f). Accordingly, we issue the following order:

Appellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant may proceed without the 

advance payment of costs on appeal. The Harris County District Clerk is directed 

to file a clerk’s record containing the items listed in Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 34.5(a), and those documents specifically requested by appellant to be 

included in the clerk’s record, on or before July 17, 2013. 

Terri Anderson, the court reporter for the 11th District Court, has notified 

this court that no record was made in this case. In addition, appellant is excused 

from paying the appellate filing fee due to his indigent status. See Tex. R. App. P. 

20.1(f). 

PER CURIAM
Case 1:07-cv-04507-AKH Document 42 Filed 05/28/2008 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99.2

                    Certification of Chief Financial Officer
                         Pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of United Tennessee
Bankshares,   Inc.  I,  Chris  H.  Triplett,   Controller  of  United  Tennessee
Bankshares,  Inc., certify, pursuant to Section 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 this report fairly presents,  in all material
     respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of  operations  of United
     Tennessee Bankshares, Inc.

Date: May 14, 2003                                    /s/ Chris H. Triplett
                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Chris H. Triplett
                                                      Controller
#### In re McPHEE.

(District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

November 29, 1913.)

No. 9,886.

Aliens (§ 68*)—Naturalization—Construction of Statute.

Tbe certificate from tbe Department of Labor, which an applicant for naturalization is required to file with his petition by Naturalization Act June 29, 1906, e. 3592, § 4, 34 Stat. 596 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911. p. 529), showing tbe date, place, and manner of bis arrival, is not necessarily tbe same certificate wbicb it is’provided by section 1 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 124) shall be issued to an immigrant on bis registry by tbe Commissioner of Immigration, nor need it be made up from tbe record of bis registry, since be may be admitted to citizenship on proof of tbe requisite facts, although be did not come into the United States through a regular port of entry.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Aliens, Cent. Dig. §§ 138-145; Dec. Dig. § 68.*]

In the matter of the petition for naturalization of George McPhee.

Petition granted.

Jerome C. .Shear, Chief Naturalization Examiner, of Collinswood, N. J., for the United States.

*

For other cases see same topic & § number in Dep. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, *&*Rep’r Indexes

THOMPSON, District Judge.

The objection of the Naturalization Examiner to the granting of the petition for naturalization in this case raises the identical questions considered by Judge Orr in the Western district of Pennsylvania in the case of In re Schmidt, 207 Fed. 678. Aside from the desirability of conformity with the decisions of the courts in this circuit, I entirely concur in the reasoning and conclusions of Judge Orr in .that case, in which Judge Young concurred.

It is therefore ordered that the prayer of the petition be granted. The petitioner may be admitted to citizenship on taking the proper oath at a naturalization hearing in this court.
# C_2011051EN.01003601.xml

| 17.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/36

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning mergers of public limited liability companies’

(Codification)

COM(2010) 391 final — 2008/0009 (COD)

2011/C 51/07

On 16 September 2010 the European Parliament decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 50(1) and (2)(g) and Article 304 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the

Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning mergers of public limited liability companies

Amended proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning mergers of public limited liability companies

COM(2010) 391 final — 2008/0009 (COD).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the content of the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 466th plenary session of 21 October 2010, by 114 votes with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 21 October 2010.

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Staffan NILSSON

---
# C_2009145EN.01001801.xml

| 25.6.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.6.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/18

---

Commission notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Community of certain side-by-side refrigerators originating in the Republic of Korea: change of the address of a company subject to an individual anti-dumping duty

2009/C 145/12

Imports of certain side-by-side refrigerators originating in the Republic of Korea are subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty, imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1289/2006 of 25 August 2006 (1) (‘Regulation (EC) No 1289/2006’).

1

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd (for convenience referred to in Regulation (EC) No 1289/2006 as ‘Samsung Electronics Corporation’), a company located in the Republic of Korea, whose exports to the Community of certain side-by-side refrigerators are subject to an anti-dumping duty of 0 % imposed by Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1289/2006, has informed the Commission that on 11 January 2009, it changed its address.

The company has argued that the change of address does not affect its right to benefit from the individual duty rate applied to it under its previous address of:

| Samsung Main Bldg, 250, 2-ga |
| --- |
| Taepyeong-ro |
| Jung-gu |
| Seoul |

Samsung Main Bldg, 250, 2-ga

Taepyeong-ro

Jung-gu

Seoul

The company submitted sufficient evidence to establish that the change of the address was, inter alia, due to an internal reorganization of the company resulting in a relocation of the business unit concerned.

inter alia

The Commission has examined the information provided and has concluded that the change of address in no way affects the findings of Regulation (EC) No 1289/2006. Furthermore, the reference to the company should reflect the name of the company as it was officially registered. Therefore, the reference in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1289/2006 to:

| Samsung Electronics Corporation |
| --- |
| Samsung Main Bldg, 250, 2-ga |
| Taepyeong-ro |
| Jung-gu |
| Seoul |

Samsung Electronics Corporation

Samsung Main Bldg, 250, 2-ga

Taepyeong-ro

Jung-gu

Seoul

should be read as:

| Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd |
| --- |
| 443-742, 416 Meatan-3 Dong |
| Yeongtong-Gu |
| Suwon |
| Kyonggi-Do |
| SOUTH KOREA |

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd

443-742, 416 Meatan-3 Dong

Yeongtong-Gu

Suwon

Kyonggi-Do

SOUTH KOREA

The Taric additional code A735 shall apply to:

| Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd |
| --- |
| 443-742, 416 Meatan-3 Dong |
| Yeongtong-Gu |
| Suwon |
| Kyonggi-Do |
| SOUTH KOREA |

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd

443-742, 416 Meatan-3 Dong

Yeongtong-Gu

Suwon

Kyonggi-Do

SOUTH KOREA

---

(1)  OJ L 236, 31.8.2006, p. 11.

1

---
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

      ( print page 21996)    
                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, May 1, 2001, 1 PM to May 1, 2001, 3 PM, NIH, Rockledge 2, Bethesda, MD, 20892 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on April 13, 2001, 66 FR 19183.                

The meeting will now start at 1:30 PM and end at 3 PM. The date and location remains the same. The meeting is closed to the public.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-10931  Filed 5-1-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Clear All

        15 November 2022    

                    USS Milwaukee, Dominican Republic Navy Work Together in Bilateral Maritime Interdiction Exercise                 
                CARIBBEAN SEA - The Freedom-variant littoral combat ship USS Milwaukee (LCS 5) and two Dominican Republic Navy ships conducted a bilateral maritime interdiction exercise off the coast of Santo Domingo, Nov. 10.            

        19 October 2022    

                    USS Milwaukee deploys, will support counter-illicit trafficking in Caribbean, Eastern Pacific                 
                MAYPORT, Fla. - The Freedom-variant littoral combat ship USS Milwaukee (LCS 5), along with the “Dragon Whales” of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 28 Detachment 9 and embarked U.S. Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachment (LEDET), departed from Naval Station Mayport Oct. 18,            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Case 1:07-cv-05720-WHP Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 1 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05720-WHP Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 2 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05720-WHP Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 3 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05720-WHP Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 4 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05720-WHP Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 5 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05720-WHP Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 6 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05720-WHP Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 7 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05720-WHP Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 8 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05720-WHP Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 9 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05720-WHP Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 10 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05720-WHP Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 11 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05720-WHP Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 12 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05720-WHP Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 13 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05720-WHP Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 14 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05720-WHP Document 1 Filed 06/15/2007 Page 15 of 15
Case 1:07-cv-05313-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05313-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05313-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cv-05313-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 4 of 4
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*JEROME H. BLOOM

*Jerome H. Bloom,*pro se, in support of the petition.

*Melissa L. Streeto,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided March 2, 2005

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 86 Conn. App. 463 (AC 24915), is denied.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-22-00166-CR 

 

EX PARTE RICKY BOLTON 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

June 13, 2022 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. 

Ricky Bolton, proceeding pro se, has filed a document with this Court seeking 

habeas relief from his criminal conviction.1 We construe the document as an application 

for writ of habeas corpus and dismiss it for want of jurisdiction.

Intermediate courts of appeals do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in 

criminal law matters. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (limiting original habeas 

jurisdiction of intermediate appellate courts to civil cases); Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 

586, 588-89 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1994, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). That jurisdiction 

1

In 2009, Bolton was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to two 

years’ confinement in a state jail facility. This Court affirmed his conviction on appeal. See Bolton v. State, 

No. 07-09-00376-CR, 2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 7823, at *14 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sep. 23, 2010, no pet.) 

(mem. op., not designated for publication).
2

instead rests with the Court of Criminal Appeals, the district courts, and the county courts. 

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.05; Ex parte Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d at 588. Only

the Court of Criminal Appeals has authority to grant post-conviction habeas relief in felony 

cases. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 3(a); Ex parte Alexander, 685 

S.W.2d 57, 60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).

For these reasons, we dismiss Bolton’s application for writ of habeas corpus for 

want of jurisdiction.2

Per Curiam

Do not publish.

2 Bolton may be entitled to habeas relief by filing an application for writ of habeas corpus with the 

clerk of the court in which the conviction being challenged was obtained, returnable to the Court of Criminal 

Appeals. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07.
Clear All

        06 March 2024    

                    Bataan ARG, 26th MEU(SOC) to Return to Homeport                  
                The ships of the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), along with the embarked 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) (MEU(SOC)) exited the Mediterranean Sea after conducting operations in the U.S. Sixth Fleet area of operations, March 5, 2024.  In the coming weeks, Sailors and            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
#### STEVENSON et al. v. KAISER et al.

(Superior Court of New York City, Equity Term.

April, 1894.)

1. Deed—Proof of Delivery—Recording.

The record of a deed is prima facie evidence of delivery to the grantee.

2. Evidence—Proof of Age.

Evidence of a person to prove his own age is competent.

Action by Matilda Stevenson and others against George M. Kaiser and others to redeem a leasehold which was sold under execution issued on a judgment rendered against one Dunning.

Judgment for plaintiffs.

D. M. Porter, for plaintiffs.

Brann & Henderson, for defendant Schluter.

James Demarest, for defendant Columbia College.

Rabe & Keller, for defendant Brook.

McADAM, J.

The litigation concerns a Columbia College lease of property on Murray street, in this city, having a number of years to run, with privilege of renewal, one of wMch has been granted-The pleadings admit the plaintiffs’ chain of title, and such admission is conclusive. Potter v. Smith, 70 N. Y. 299. It is admitted that Dunning transferred the lease to the plaintiffs, May 4, 1875, and the defendants claim that the plaintiffs transferred it to the-defendants, George P. Brook and John P. Meyer, May 13,1875. The-plaintiffs deny that they executed any such instrument, and have proved that they were infants at the time, of the respective ages of 11 and 12; so that the transfer, if made, is voidable by them,, and must be declared void on their application. It does not appear that any consideration was ever paid to them; therefore they have notMng to return as a condition of rescission. The record of the transfer to the plaintiffs is prima facie evidence of delivery to them. Cases cited in Gifford v. Corrigan, 105 N. Y. 224, 11 N. E. 498; Lawrence v. Farley, 24 Hun, 293; Gilbert v. Insurance Co., 23 Wend. 46; Van Valen v. Schemerhorn, 22 How. Pr. 418. The-*1123evidence of the plaintiffs proving their own ages was competent. Banks v. Metcalfe, 1 Wheeler, Cr. Cas. 381; Cheever v. Congdon, 34 Mich. 296; Morrison v. Emsley, 53 Mich. 564, 19 N. W. 187; Whart. Ev. (3d Ed.) § 208; Railroad Co. v. Coggin, 73 Ga. 689; and see State v. McClain, 31 Pac. 790; Pen. Code, § 19, and cases cited in note thereto.

The execution was issued September 28, 1877, and the sale was thereafter made under it The plaintiffs had 20 years within which to bring their action to redeem. Code, § 379; Shriver v. Shriver, 86 N. Y. 575; Howell v. Leavitt, 95 N. Y. 617; Clarke v. Gibbons, 83 N. Y. 107; Acker v. Acker, 81 N. Y. 143. Where the title of a party in possession of lands has become fixed and absolute by reason of the statute of limitations, it is not affected by a subsequent statute extending the time of the limitation. Shriver v. Shriver, supra. The rule, however, does not apply to the defendants, who, in the light of the evidence, do not stand in the position of a party in possession with title, but as strangers to the plaintiffs, the possessors of the title. Id. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to redeem, and to that end an accounting must be had on equitable principles to be declared in the decree. Judgment accordingly.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-60735

Summary Calendar

__________________

VIBERT BRENTNOL ROSS,

 Petitioner,

versus

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

 Respondent.

- - - - - - - - - -

Petition for Review of an Order of the 

Board of Immigration Appeals

A34-717-083

- - - - - - - - - -

September 3, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Vibert B. Ross, a Guyanan citizen, asserts that the Board of

Immigration Appeals ("BIA") erred in summarily dismissing his

application for waiver of deportation, filed pursuant to 8 U.S.C.

§ 1182(c). The BIA did not abuse its discretion in dismissing

his appeal for failure to file an appellate brief. See 8 C.F.R.

§ 3.1(d)(1-a)(i)(E); Medrano-Villatoro v. INS, 866 F.2d 132, 134

(5th Cir. 1989). Ross has failed to demonstrate that his counsel
No. 95-60735

-2-

was ineffective for failing to file such brief, because he has

not shown prejudice. See Miranda-Lores v. INS, 17 F.3d 84, 85

(5th Cir. 1994). 

The petition for review is DENIED.

Ross’ “Motion to Amend and Addendum” is DENIED.
Case 1:07-cv-05360-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05360-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05360-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05360-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05360-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 5 of 5
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          66,442
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   87,316
<ALLOWANCES>                                       696
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          39,992
<DEPRECIATION>                                  16,769
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,918,710
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                      1,595,550
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,456
<OTHER-SE>                                     582,951
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,918,710
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               526,804
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               366,506
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                29,634
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             232,497
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (101,833)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (32,662)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (69,171)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (69,171)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.61)
        

</TABLE>