alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 1:07-cv-05778-JGK-RLE Document 15 Filed 03/11/2008 Page 1 of 1
Case 7:07-cv-05795-KMK-MDF Document 26 Filed 11/16/2007 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE>    5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 1995 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

       
<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                      872,864
<SECURITIES>                                 46,509
<RECEIVABLES>                               377,471
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          2,251,769
<PP&E>                                   39,228,877
<DEPRECIATION>                           17,950,541
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           23,530,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       582,421
<BONDS>                                  14,888,807
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                8,058,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             23,530,105
<SALES>                                           0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          4,830,618
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            347,260
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        1,524,837
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           1,841,695
<INCOME-TAX>                                      0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       1,841,695
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                              1,841,695
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 45.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 45.58
        

</TABLE>
## NO. 12

- 16

- 00114

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

DONNA MORRIS,

APPELLANT

V.

MIKE HUDSON,

APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 241S T

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURI

AM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3. Pursuant to Rule 32.1, Appellant’s docketing statement

was due to have been filed at the time the appeal was perfected, i.e., April 18, 2016. On

April 18, 2016, this court requested that Appellant file a docketing statement within ten days if

s he had not already done so. On the same date, by separate letter, this court notified Appellant

that the filing fee was due on or befor e April 28, 2016.

Because Appellant did not file the docketing statement as requested in the April 18, 2016

notice, this court issued a second notice on April 29, 2016, advising Appellant that the docketing

statement was past due. The notice also advise d Appellant that the filing fee in the appeal was

due to have been paid on or before April 28, 2016, but had not been received. See T EX

. R. A PP

.

P. 5. The notice further provided that unless the docketing statement was filed and the filing fee

paid on or before May 9, 2016, the appeal would be presented for dismissal in accordance with

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3. The date for filing the docketing statement and paying

the filing fee has passed, and Appellant has not complied with the court’s r equest.

Because Appellant has failed, after notice, to comply with Rules 5 and 32.1, the appeal is

dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).2

Opinion delivered May 11, 2016.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

( PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

MAY 1 1 , 2016

NO. 12

- 16

- 00114

- CV

DONNA MORRIS,

Appellant

V.

MIKE HUDSON,

Appellee

Appeal from the 241st Dis trict Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 06

- 155

- C)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed ; and that this decision be certified to the court

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 92 (Friday, May 11, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 24130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11894]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-626-003]


Transwestern Pipeline Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

May 7, 2001.
    Take notice that on April 13, 2001, Transwestern Pipeline Company 
(Transwestern) filed a letter to comply with the Commission's March 14, 
2001, order in this proceeding.\1\ The letter explain's (1) Why its 
proposed netting and trading proposal relies on dollar values as 
opposed to volumetric trades, (2) whether imbalances on its system 
could be netted and traded on a volumetric basis, and (3) how existing 
Section 27.1(e) of Transwestern's tariff, which provides for the make 
up of imbalances on an in-kind basis, would operate with Transwestern's 
proposed new tariff language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 94 FERC para. 61,249 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before May 14, 2001. 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 proceedings. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-11894 Filed 5-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Clear All

        18 September 2023    

                    SECNAV Names Ship After American Abolitionist, Social Activist Harriet Tubman                 
                CHURCH CREEK, Md. - Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Carlos Del Toro announced today that he named a U.S. Navy ship after American abolitionist and social activist Harriet Tubman, Sept. 17.            

        07 August 2023    

                    SECNAV Names Future Navajo-Class Towing, Salvage, and Rescue Ship Solomon Atkinson                 
                WASHINGTON -- Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Carlos Del Toro announced today that a future Navajo-class Towing, Salvage, and Rescue (T-ATS) ship will be named in honor of Solomon Atkinson, a pioneering Navy SEAL and an Alaskan Native of the Metlakatla Indian Community, Annette Islands Reserve.            

#####  

##### 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-05351-AKH Document 31 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05351-AKH Document 31 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 2 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05351-AKH Document 31 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 3 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05351-AKH Document 31 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 4 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05351-AKH Document 31 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 5 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05351-AKH Document 31 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 6 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05351-AKH Document 31 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 7 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05351-AKH Document 31 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 8 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05351-AKH Document 31 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 9 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-05299-AKH Document 4-2 Filed 08/02/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sidney Edward HUDDLESTON, III, a/k/a Eddy, a/k/a Sidney E. Huddleston, III, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13-6075.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2013.

Decided: April 30, 2013.

Sidney Edward Huddleston, III, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Grimes Johnston, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sidney Edward Huddleston, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit *190justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Huddleston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6139

VICTOR GLEN WILKES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, FCI EDGEFIELD,

Respondent – Appellee,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (8:12-cv-03046-TLW)

Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 5, 2013

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Victor Glen Wilkes, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Victor Glen Wilkes, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 

(West 2006 & Supp. 2012) petition. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. We further find that the district 

court correctly rejected Wilkes’ alternative request for a writ 

of audita querela because he had available another remedy, a 28 

U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion.* Accordingly, although 

we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Wilkes v. Warden, No. 

8:12-cv-03046-TLW (D.S.C. Dec. 10, 2012; Jan. 16, 2013). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 * The fact that Wilkes cannot proceed under § 2255 unless he 

obtains authorization from this court to file a successive 

motion does not alter this conclusion. United States v. Valdez–

Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077, 1080 (9th Cir. 2001) (“We agree with our 

sister circuits . . . that a federal prisoner may not challenge 

a conviction or sentence by way of a petition for a writ of 

audita querela when that challenge is cognizable under 

§ 2255.”).
# C_2011054EN.01003101.xml

| 19.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.2.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/31

---

467th PLENARY SESSION HELD ON 8 AND 9 DECEMBER 2010

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement’

COM(2010) 507 final — 2010/0260 (COD)

(2011/C 54/06)

On 7 October 2010, the European Parliament and, on 15 October 2010, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), on the

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to units of measurement

COM(2010) 507 final – 2010/0260 (COD).

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 467th plenary session of 8 and 9 December 2010 (meeting of 8 December), by 85 in favour, votes with one abstention, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 8 December 2010

The President of the European Economic and Social Committee

Staffan NILSSON

---
#### BROOKS, Respondent, v. BROOKS, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department.

June 20, 1894.)

Action by Sarah Brooks against Benjamin Brooks.

No opinion. Judgment appealed from affirmed, with costs.
1

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Appellate case name: Oscar Axcel Duron v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-18-0376-CR

Trial court case number: 1507865

Trial court: 176th District Court of Harris County

A jury convicted appellant, Oscar Axcel Duron, of the felony offense of 

aggravated robbery and assessed his punishment at confinement for fifteen years. And, 

the trial court appointed Brian M. Middleton to represent appellant on appeal. Appointed 

counsel has filed a motion to withdraw with a brief concluding that this appeal is 

frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 1400 (1967).

Brian M. Middleton is now the Fort Bend County District Attorney; therefore, 

appellant is not currently represented by counsel. Accordingly, we abate the appeal and 

remand the case to the trial court to permit Brian M. Middleton’s withdrawal and to 

appoint substitute counsel, at no expense to appellant, to represent him on appeal. See

TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.051(a), (c), (d)(1); 26.04(p).1

The trial court clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the 

new counsel’s name and contact information, and any trial court orders, findings or 

recommendations with this Court no later than 30 days from the date of this order.

 

1 Until an Anders motion to withdraw is granted, counsel continues to represent his client

and, among other things, “must respond to his client’s questions, must send him a copy of 

the decision by the court of appeals, [and] must ensure that his client has been informed 

of his right to file a pro se PDR.” In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 411 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2008) (footnotes omitted). We will not grant counsel’s motion to withdraw until 

“decid[ing] whether the appeal is, in fact, wholly frivolous, or whether there are any 

arguable claims of merit.” Id. at 410.
2

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s 

active docket.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Julie Countiss

  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: ___February 26, 2019____
#                                                                         AIRLANT Force Master Chief Visits Commands                                                                    

##### by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Tatyana Freeman 

04 October 2023

            SLIDESHOW | 6 images | Force Master Chief Haily Visits                    230802-N-N0783-1003 FALLON, Nev. (Aug. 2, 2023) Force Master Chief Jimmy Hailey, center, the force master chief of Naval Air Force Atlantic (AIRLANT), poses for a photo with Sailors assigned to Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 11 during a visit. Hailey is visiting a number of AIRLANT's subordinate commands to meet with Sailors and hear what's on their minds and see what he and the command can do support them better. (U.S. Navy photo by Senior Chief Information Systems Technician Kristina Polverino)        

                    Force Master Chief Haily Visits                                            1 of 6                    
                        Download Image                                            Image Details                    

                    230802-N-N0783-1002                                            2 of 6                    
                        Download Image                                            Image Details                    

                    Force Master Chief Haily Visits                                            3 of 6                    
                        Download Image                                            Image Details                    

                    Force Master Chief Haily Visits                                            4 of 6                    
                        Download Image                                            Image Details                    

                    Force Master Chief Haily Visits                                            5 of 6                    
                        Download Image                                            Image Details                    

                    Force Master Chief Haily Visits                                            6 of 6                    
                        Download Image                                            Image Details                    

Tags:
**AIRLANT
#### People v Manuel Patel, Also Known as Jaime Piedratita.

Upon the court’s own motion, the order of this court entered on July 30, 1987 and the memorandum decision filed therewith [132 AD2d 498] are amended to reflect the caption indicated herein. Concur Murphy P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 14-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 14-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 14-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 14-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 14-3 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05389-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/08/2007 Page 3 of 3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward King, Also Known as Edward 25x King, Jr., Also Known as Edward King, Jr., Also Known as Edward Kerr, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Levittan, J.), rendered on May 25, 1988, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. *(See, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Carro, Rosenberger, Ellerin and Smith, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 91 (Thursday, May 10, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 23963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11797]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Submit comments on or before June 11, 2001. If you intend to 
comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB 
Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
    Copies: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency 
Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 
3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance 
Officer, (202) 205-7044.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title: Notice of Award/GrantCooperative 
Agreement Cost Sharing Proposal.
    No's: 1222 and 1224.
    Frequency: On Occasion.
    Description of Respondents: Participating Colleges and Grants 
Management Office.
    Annual Responses: 477.
    Annual Burden: 34,191.

Jacqueline White,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. 01-11797 Filed 5-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Case 1:07-cv-05302-AKH Document 19 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05302-AKH Document 19 Filed 09/24/2007 Page 2 of 2