alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Inoel Jedamin RODAS-DE LEON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-5724.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
NUMBER 13-12-00204-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

RAUL LONGORIA, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 319th District Court 

of Nueces County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Garza

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Raul Longoria, attempts to appeal his conviction for aggravated 

robbery. The trial court has certified that this Ais a plea-bargain case, and the defendant 

has NO right of appeal.@ See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
2

On March 28, 2012, this Court notified appellant=s counsel of the trial court=s 

certification and ordered counsel to: (1) review the record; (2) determine whether 

appellant has a right to appeal; and (3) forward to this Court, by letter, counsel=s findings 

as to whether appellant has a right to appeal, or, alternatively, advise this Court as to the 

existence of any amended certification.

On April 18, 2012, counsel filed a letter brief with this Court. Counsel=s response 

does not establish that the certification currently on file with this Court is incorrect or that 

appellant otherwise has a right to appeal. 

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that an appeal must be 

dismissed if the trial court=s certification does not show that the defendant has the right of 

appeal. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4. Accordingly, this 

appeal is DISMISSED. Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed 

26th day of April, 2012.
FILED: January 24 , 2024

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 22

- 1660

___________________

JOSE DAGOBERTO REYES; ROSY GIRON DE REYES; FELIX ALEXIS BOLANOS; RUTH RIVAS; YOVANA JALDIN SOLIS; ESTEBAN RUBEN MOYA YRAPURA; ROSA ELENA AMAYA; HERBERT DAVID SARAVIA
CRUZ

Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.

WAPLES MOBILE HOME PARK LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; WAPLES PROJECT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; A. J. DWOSKIN & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Defendants

- Appellees

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

NATIONAL HOUSING LAW PROJECT; THE UNITED STATES; JOHN D. TRASVINA, former HUD Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity; NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING ALLIANCE; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION; LAWYERS ’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW; EQUAL RIGHTS CENTER; HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES MADE EQUAL OF VIRGINIA, INC.; HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF GREATER CHARLOTTESVILLE; PIEDMONT HOUSING ALLIANCE

,

Amici Supporting Appellant

.

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS SMALL BUSINESS LEGAL CENTER; THE REAL ESTATE ROUNDTABLE

,

Amici Supporting Appellee

.

___________________

O R D E R

___________________ The court amends its opinion filed January 2 3 , 2024 , as follows: USCA4 Appeal: 22-1660 Doc: 83 Filed: 01/24/2024 Pg: 1 of 2On page 17, Roman num eral III. is ch ange d to IV.

For the Court

-- By Direction

/s/ Nwamaka Anowi, Clerk USCA4 Appeal: 22-1660 Doc: 83 Filed: 01/24/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 19, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15411]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation


Arrowrock Dam Outlet Works Rehabilitation

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is issued under authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The Record of Decision (ROD) signed 
on April 30, 2001 contains the decision of the Department of the 
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) Pacific Northwest Region, 
to select and implement the Preferred Alternative (Alternative A), as 
described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 
Alternative A was identified as the environmentally preferred 
alternative in the FEIS. This alternative best achieves the project 
objectives and meets the purpose and need of the project in an 
environmentally sensitive manner.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD may be requested from the following 
locations:
    <bullet> Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, 1150 
North Curtis Road, Suite 100, Boise, ID 83706-1234.
    <bullet> Bureau of Reclamation, Snake River Area Office, 214 
Broadway Ave, Boise, ID 83702-7298.
    <bullet> The ROD is also available for viewing or downloading on 
the internet at http://www.pn.usbr.gov/project/arrowrock/arrowrock.shtml.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Dunn, Environmental Specialist, 
(208) 334-9844.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, Reclamation 
prepared a FEIS to examine the impacts of alternative methods to 
rehabilitate the outlet works at Arrowrock Dam by removing the 10 lower 
level Ensign valves and replacing them with clamshell gates. Two action 
alternatives were identified that differed only in the timing of 
reservoir drawdown and the elevation of Arrowrock Reservoir and Lucky 
Peak Lake in the third construction season. The preferred alternative 
(alternative A) requires a longer period of drawdown of Arrowrock 
Reservoir, but both Arrowrock Reservoir and Lucky Peak Lake would 
remain at a higher elevation than with the other action alternative. 
Based on comments received on the Draft EIS concerning impacts to water 
quality and bull trout, the preferred alternative was modified so that 
the probability of sluice gate use, which could release large amounts 
of sediment form Arrowrock Reservoir, was reduced from 42% to 15%. The 
No Action Alternative, which included actions that would be required 
for an intensive maintenance program if the Ensign valves were not 
replaced, was also evaluated.

    Dated: May 24, 2001.
Kenneth R. Pedde,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 01-15411 Filed 6-18-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                          34,701
<SECURITIES>                                    46,099
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,015
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,073
<INVENTORY>                                     72,794
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               244,297
<PP&E>                                          47,796
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,925
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 283,399
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           98,677
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           214
<OTHER-SE>                                     179,779
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   283,399
<SALES>                                        143,428
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               168,268
<CGS>                                           68,102
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   87,445
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                27,940<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 797
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,416
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,240
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             22,176
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    22,176
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.02
<FN> 
<F1>  EXCLUDES SG&A AS SG&A IS PART OF 5-03(b)(4).
</FN> 
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Yolanda McDOW, also known as Yo, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 09-11233

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 2010.

Susan Cowger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Margaret Loraine Schmucker, Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

The attorney appointed to represent Yolanda McDow has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). McDow has filed a response. Our independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and McDow’s response discloses no nonfrivo-lous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
Richard Warren PAIGE, Jr., petitioner, v. TEXAS.

No. 16-6356.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas denied.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report of The Bank of Kentucky Financial Corporation
(BKFC) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert W. Zapp, Chief Executive Officer and President of BKFC,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 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 conditions and results of operations of BKFC.



/s/ Robert W. ZappRobert W. ZappChief Executive Officer and PresidentMarch 10, 2006
# C_2011030EN.01000801.xml

| 29.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 30/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 30/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 — Holland Malt BV v European Commission, Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-464/09 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - State aid - Guidelines for aid in the agriculture sector - Point 4.2.5 - Malt market - No normal market outlets - Aid measure declared incompatible with the common market)

2011/C 30/12

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Holland Malt BV (represented by: O. Brouwer, A. Stoffer and P. Schepens, advocaten)

Appellants:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents) Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and Y. de Vries, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 9 September 2009 in Case T-369/06 Holland Malt BV v Commission — Holland Malt BV, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission by which that Court dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decision 2007/59/EC of 26 September 2006 declaring as incompatible with the common market the aid granted by the Netherlands in favour of Holland Malt BV for the creation of a malt production plant at Eemshaven (Groningen), in the form of investment aid of EUR 7 425 000, subject to the condition precedent of its approval by the Commission (State aid No C 14/2005 — ex N 149/2004) (OJ 2007 L 32, p. 76) — Application of the Guidelines for State aid in the agriculture sector

Holland Malt BV

Commission

Holland Malt BV, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands

Commission

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Holland Malt BV to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Holland Malt BV to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.

1

---
----

            COMMISSION DECISION         

of 19 August 2004         

amending Decision 1999/815/EC concerning measures prohibiting the placing on the market of toys and childcare articles intended to be placed in the mouth by children under three years of age made of soft PVC containing certain phthalates

(notified under document number C(2004) 3071)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2004/624/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to European Parliament and Council Directive 2001/95/EC of 3 December 2001 on General Product Safety (1), and in particular Article 13(2) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Article 5 of Decision 1999/815/EC the words ‘20 August 2004’ are replaced by the words ‘20 November 2004’.

Article 2

Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to comply with this Decision and publish those measures. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 August 2004.

For the Commission

David BYRNE            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 11, 15.1.2002, p. 4.

(2)OJ L 315, 9.12.1999, p. 46. Decision as last amended by Decision 2004/178/EC (OJ L 55, 24.2.2004, p. 66).

(3)OJ L 228, 11.8.1992, p. 24. Directive as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1).

(4)OJ L 84, 5.4.1993, p. 1. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           5,070
<SECURITIES>                                     8,243
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,866
<ALLOWANCES>                                        37
<INVENTORY>                                     13,020
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,823
<PP&E>                                          25,048
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,730
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,355
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,298
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           947
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,355
<SALES>                                        234,050
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               234,050
<CGS>                                          197,801
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  197,801
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 285
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,637
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,524
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,113
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.29


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 172 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 172

     Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on House 
          Administration in the One Hundred Eleventh Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2009

Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania submitted the following resolution; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Providing amounts for the expenses of the Committee on House 
          Administration in the One Hundred Eleventh Congress.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. AMOUNTS FOR COMMITTEE EXPENSES.

    For the expenses of the Committee on House Administration 
(hereafter in this resolution referred to as the ``Committee''), 
including the expenses of all staff salaries, there shall be paid, out 
of the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives for 
committee salaries and expenses, not more than $11,475,431 for the One 
Hundred Eleventh Congress.

SEC. 2. SESSION LIMITATIONS.

    Of the amount specified in section 1--
            (1) not more than $5,544,451 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2009, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2010; and
            (2) not more than $5,930,980 shall be available for 
        expenses incurred during the period beginning at noon on 
        January 3, 2010, and ending immediately before noon on January 
        3, 2011.

SEC. 3. VOUCHERS.

    Payments under this resolution shall be made on vouchers authorized 
by the Committee, signed by the Chairman of the Committee, and approved 
in the manner directed by the Committee.

SEC. 4. REGULATIONS.

    Amounts made available under this resolution shall be expended in 
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2010179EN.01001301.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/13

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Ioannis Katsivardas — Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE v Ipourgos Ikonomikon

(Case C-160/09) (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 1591/84 - Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Cartagena Agreement and the member countries thereof, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, of the other part - Most-favoured-nation clause - Direct effect - Excise duty on the import of bananas into Greece)

(2010/C 179/20)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ioannis Katsivardas — Nikolaos Tsitsikas OE

Defendant: Ipourgos Ikonomikon

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1591/84 of 4 June 1984 concerning the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Cartagena Agreement and the member countries thereof — Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela — of the other part (OJ 1984 L 153, p. 1) — Most-favoured-nation clause — Right of an individual seeking the refund of domestic tax to rely on the agreement in order to demonstrate the tax’s incompatibility with the agreement — Banana import regime

Operative part of the judgment

Article 4 of the Cooperation Agreement concluded between the European Economic Community, of the one part, and the Cartagena Agreement and the member countries thereof — Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela — of the other part, approved by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1591/84 of 4 June 1984, is not such as to confer on individuals rights upon which they might rely before the courts of a Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 153, 4.7.2009.

---
Dorothy L. BIERY, et al., petitioners, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-316.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 31, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

In re : POINT CONVERSIONS , LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
, Petitioner

______________________

2020

- 152

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in No.
0:18

- cv

- 60912

- BB, Judge Beth Bloom.

______________________

ON P ETITION AND MOTION

______________________

Before M OORE
, O’M ALLEY , and S TOLL
, Circuit Judges

. O’M ALLEY
, Circuit Judge

. O R D E R

Tropical Paradise Resorts LLC d/b/a Rodeway Inn & Suites (“Rodeway”) filed the underlying suit against Point Conversions, LLC (“PC”) in the Southern District of Florida

. After t he district court dismissed all claims

, PC appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit . On May 26, 2020, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. PC subsequently asked the Eleventh Circuit to transfer the case to this court, which the Eleventh Circuit denied on July 16, 2020

. After t he Eleventh Circuit denied Case: 20-152 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 11/25/2020IN RE : POINT CONVERSIONS

, LLC 2

re hearing , PC filed this petition seeking mandamus to direct the district court to vacate its order or, alternatively, to direct the Eleventh Circuit to transfer.

We must dismiss this request. PC was content with the Eleventh Circuit adjudicating its appeal until it received an unfavorable ruling. To the extent PC believes that the Eleventh Ci rcuit erred in exercising jurisdiction or erred in affirming the district court’s judgment , the proper course is to seek review by the Supreme Court of the United States, which has jurisdiction to review decisions of the Eleventh Circuit . It cannot seek m andamus from this

court

, which does not have such authority. See In re Roberts , 846 F.2d 1360, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ( noting that this court as “a co

- equal member of a system of thirteen appellate courts. . . is not . . . possessed of jurisdiction to rev iew and reverse the judgements of the other twelve” ) ; see also Baker Perkins, Inc. v. Werner & Pfleiderer Corp. , 710 F.2d 1561, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citation omitted) (noting that a petitioner must “ show that the action sought to be corrected by mandamus is within this court’s statutorily defined subject matter jurisdiction” ).

Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) PC’s motion to file an untimely reply is granted. ECF No. 21 is accepted for filing

. (2) The petition for a writ of mandamus is di smissed

. (3) PC’s motion to schedule argument is denied.

Novem ber 25 , 2020 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

s 29 Case: 20-152 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 11/25/2020