alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 1, 2023

No. 04

- 22

- 00668

- CR

Ana Victoria RAMIREZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 187th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2022CR2717 Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement, appellant pleaded nolo contendere to one count of injury to a child. The trial court assessed punishment at four years’ imprisonment and a fine of $1,500.00. On August 30, 2022, the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that “the defendant has waived the right of appeal” and this “is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2).

Generally, in a plea bargain case, a defendant may appeal only: (1) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial; (2) after getting the trial court’s permission to appe al; or (3) where the specific appeal is expressly authorized by statute. See id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the pro secutor and agreed to by the appellant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave its permission to appeal.

See id. The trial court’s certification, th erefore, appears to accurately reflect that this is a plea

bargain case and that appellant does not have a right to appeal. We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the

record

. . . .” Id. 25.2(d).

This appeal will be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d) unless an amended trial court certification showing that appellant has the right to appeal is made part of the appellate record by February 15, 202 3

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v.

State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order).We ORDER all appellate deadlines be suspended until further order of the court.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of February, 2023

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: SY B. GAIBER & CO., SY B. GAIBER, AND MICHAEL R. HEMPEL 

DOCKET NUMBER: 165 

DATE: MAY 22, 1972 

DOCUMENT TYPE: RULING AS TO STAY ORDER AND EXTENSION OF TIME 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE 

In re: Sy B. Gaiber & Co., Sy B. Gaiber, and Michael R. Hempel, Respondents 

CEA Docket No. 165 

Ruling as to Stay Order and Extension of Time 

Pursuant to the telephone request on May 19, 1972, by counsel for 

respondents, the time for filing a petition for reconsideration in this 

proceeding is extended to and including June 9, 1972. 

In view of this request, the denial of trading privileges to the respondents 

will continue to be stayed pending the outcome of the petition for 

reconsideration. However, the cease and desist provisions of the order of April 

12, 1972, shall remain in effect. 

If additional time is needed, a further reasonable request for an extension 

of time will be granted, but the stay order will be lifted putting the denial of 

trading privileges into effect. 

Done at Washington, D. C., 

May 22, 1972 

[SEE SIGNATURE IN ORIGINAL] 

Donald A. Campbell 

Judicial Officer 

Office of the Secretary 

LOAD-DATE: June 16, 2008 
Page 2
Steven Allen GREEN, petitioner, v. Scott KERNAN, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

No. 16-6185.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 5, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33470-33471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15659]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD05-01-018]
RIN 2115-AE47


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Mullica River

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District has approved a 
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the 
Green Bank Drawbridge across the Mullica River, mile 18.0, Green Bank, 
New Jersey. The bridge owner may close the draw for needed repairs with 
limited vertical navigation clearance beneath the bridge, starting June 
18, 2001, through June 27, 2001, working nights if

[[Page 33471]]

required. This deviation to the regulation is necessary to allow the 
contractor to repair the superstructure and the bascule.

DATES: This deviation is effective from June 18, 2001 through June 27, 
2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann B. Deaton, Bridge Administrator, 
Fifth Coast Guard District, Bridge Section at (757) 398-6222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: IEW Construction Group, a contractor for the 
New Jersey Department of Transportation requested the Coast Guard to 
approve a temporary deviation from the normal operation of the bridge 
in order to accommodate repairs. The repairs involve refurbishing the 
superstructure with extensive repairs to the bascule. Presently, the 
draw is required to operate under the operating regulations in 33 CFR 
117.731a. To facilitate the repair of the bascule span, it will remain 
in the closed position during the period this deviation is in effect.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35, the District Commander granted a 
temporary deviation from the governing regulations in a letter dated 
May 17, 2001. A Local Notice to Mariners and a Broadcast Notice were 
sent out, so marine vessels could arrange their transits to minimize 
any impacts caused by the temporary deviation.
    The temporary deviation allows the Green Bank Drawbridge across the 
Mullica River, mile 18.0, in Green Bank, New Jersey to remain closed 
for 10 consecutive days beginning June 18, 2001 through June 27, 2001.

    Dated: June 11, 2001.
John E. Shkor,
Vice Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 01-15659 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1606 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 1606

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       August 10, 2010.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order to 
take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1586) to modernize the air traffic 
control system, improve the safety, reliability, and availability of 
transportation by air in the United States, provide for modernization of the air 
traffic control system, reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and for 
other purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate 
amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any 
point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations 
or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House 
amendment to the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be 
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided 
among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Appropriations, the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
motion to final adoption without intervening motion.
    Sec. 2.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a two-thirds vote 
to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented 
to the House is waived with respect to any resolution reported through the 
legislative day of August 11, 2010.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
**EXHIBIT32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,**

**ASADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, Paul D. Melnuk,as Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of ThermadyneHoldings Corporation (the “Company”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto my knowledge:

(1) theaccompanying Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”) fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended; and

(2) theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|                         | By:    | /s/ Paul D.  Melnuk            |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------------------------------|--------|
|                    |   |                           |   |
|                    |   | Paul D. Melnuk                 |   |
|                    |   | Chief Executive  Officer       |   |
|                    |   | (Principal  Executive Officer) |   |
|                    |   |                           |
|                    |   |                           |
| Date: November 15, 2006 |   |                           |

 

----
245 Summer Street

Fidelity® Investments 

Boston, MA 02210

September 30, 2016

U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Attention: File Room

| RE:

Fidelity Salem Street Trust (the trust): File Nos. 002-41839 and 811-02105 

Fidelity Real Estate Index Fund Fidelity SAI Real Estate Index FundFidelity SAI Small-Mid Cap 500 Index FundFidelity SAI U.S. Large Cap Index FundFidelity SAI U.S. Quality Index Fund (the fund(s))

________________________________________________________________________

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Transmitted herewith pursuant to Rule 497(j) under the Securities Act of 1933 is certification that the Prospectuses and Statements of Additional Information with respect to the above referenced funds do not differ from those filed in the most recent post-effective amendment, which was filed electronically.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Marc Bryant

Marc Bryant

Secretary of the Trust |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# AGENCY:

Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Notice of Advisory Committee Meetings. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on E-Commerce will meet in closed session on September 25-26, 2001, and October 23, 2001, at SAIC, Inc., 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA. This Task Force will review the DoD's current implementation status of e-commerce tools and make any appropriate                               ( print page 33239)                            recommendations that might enhance opportunities for cost reduction, capital and manpower efficiency.                    

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will review and evaluate the Department's new procurement approaches and its current implementation status in light of the fact that the Department has one of the largest acquisition systems in the world for both goods and services.

In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and that accordingly these meetings will be closed to the public.

Dated: June 14, 2001.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 01-15593  Filed 6-20-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-08-M
BIOLITEC AG, et al., petitioners, v. ANGIODYNAMICS, INC.

No. 16-494.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 9, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Alan HAMILTON, petitioner, v. Daniel DAVILA, III.

No. 16-6402.

Supreme Court of the United States

Nov. 28, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          23,437
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  131,641
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,670
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               177,801
<PP&E>                                         128,617
<DEPRECIATION>                                  66,029
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 806,386
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          178,733
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0      
<COMMON>                                           207
<OTHER-SE>                                     176,829
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   806,386
<SALES>                                        704,214
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               704,214
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  663,642
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,359
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,181
<INCOME-TAX>                                    10,257
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,924
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,924 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.07) 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.07)  
                                                

</TABLE>
## NUMBER 13 - 2 1 - 00 053 - C V 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

— EDINBURG

CLEO SEABREAK , Appellant,

v. L.S. , Appellee.

On appeal from the 343rd District Court of San Patricio C ounty, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina Appellant Cleo Seabreak appealed a judgment rendered against her and in favor of appellee, L.S., a minor child, in trial court cause number S

- 19

- 5210CV

- C in the 343rd District Court of San Patricio County, Texas. The parties to this appeal have now filed an agreed motion to dismiss the appeal . According to the motion, the appellant and the2

appellee “ have agreed to t he voluntary dismissal of this appeal , ” that “ this appeal should not affect the final judgment rendered by the trial court, ” and that “ the costs of this appeal should be taxed against the party incurring the same. ” The parties further request that we render judgment effectuating the ir agreement. The parties’ agreed motion requests relief that is not allowed by t he appellate rules. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1) (allowing the court to “dismiss the appeal or affirm the appealed judgment or order unless s uch disposition would prevent a party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled”); id. R. 42.1(a)(2) (allowing the court to render judgment effectuating an agreement, set aside the judgment without regard to the merits and remand, or abat e the appeal and permit proceedings in the trial court to effectuate the agreement). H ere, the parties ’ request s that we dismiss the appeal and render judgment are mutually exclusive. Compare id. R. 42.1(a)(1) (allowing the dismissal of an appeal by motion), with id. R. 42.1(a)(2)(A) (allowing the rendition of judgment by agreement); see In re Marriage of McQueen , 597 S.W.3d 53, 54 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.) (order). Upon revie wing the agreed motion to dismiss , however, it appears that the parties to this appeal are specifically requesting that we dismiss the appeal, which , as requested, would not affect the final judgment rendered by the trial
court

. The Court, having examined and fully considered the a greed motion to dismiss, is of the opinion that it should be granted as co n strued

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(1). Accordingly, we grant the agreed motion to dismiss and we dismiss the appeal. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, costs will be taxed against the party incurring the same

.3

See id . R. 42.1(d) (“Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant.”)

. Having dismissed the appeal at the parties’ request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

JAIME TIJERINA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 11 t h day of March , 202 1

.
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 15 

Authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary to inquire whether 

the House should impeach G. Thomas Porteous, a judge of the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2009 

Mr. CONYERS (for himself and Mr. SMITH of Texas) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

RESOLUTION 

Authorizing and directing the Committee on the Judiciary 

to inquire whether the House should impeach G. Thomas 

Porteous, a judge of the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana. 

1 Resolved, That in continuance of the authority con2 ferred in House Resolution 1448 of the One Hundred 

3 Tenth Congress adopted by the House of Representatives 

4 on September 17, 2008, the Committee on the Judiciary 

5 shall inquire whether the House should impeach G. Thom6 as Porteous, a judge of the United States District Court 

7 for the Eastern District of Louisiana. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 15 IH 

1 SEC. 2. The Committee on the Judiciary or any sub2 committee or task force designated by the Committee may, 

3 in connection with the inquiry under this resolution, take 

4 affidavits and depositions by a member, counsel, or con5 sultant of the Committee, pursuant to notice or subpoena. 

6 SEC. 3. There shall be paid out of the applicable ac7 counts of the House such sums as may be necessary to 

8 assist the Committee on the Judiciary in conducting the 

9 inquiry under this resolution, any of which may be used 

10 for the procurement of staff or consultant services. 

11 SEC. 4. (a) For the purpose of the inquiry under this 

12 resolution, the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized 

13 to require by subpoena or otherwise— 

14 (1) the attendance and testimony of any person (in15 cluding at a taking of a deposition by counsel or consult16 ant of the Committee); and 

17 (2) the production of such things; 

18 as it deems necessary to such inquiry. 

19 (b) The Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, 

20 after consultation with the ranking member, may exercise 

21 the authority of the Committee under subsection (a). 

22 (c) The Committee on the Judiciary may adopt a rule 

23 regulating the taking of depositions by a member, counsel, 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 15 IH 

1 or consultant of the Committee, including pursuant to 

2 subpoena. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS