alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Petition for Writ of Mandamus D ismisse d and Memorandum Opinion filed

December 6 , 2022.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00693

- CR

IN RE TODD W. ALTSCH UL , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 412th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 23,557

- XY



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 26, 2022 , relator Todd W. Altschul filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this court

. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petitio n, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Justin R. Gilbert, presiding judge of the 412th District Court of Brazoria County , to issue the writ of habeas corpus and rule on the merits of his application for writ of habeas
corpus

.2

Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides the exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07; Bd. of Pardons & Paroles ex rel. Keene v. Ct. of Appeals for Eighth Dist. , 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Te x. Crim. App. 1995). The Texas Criminal Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to grant pos t

- conviction habeas corpus relief on a final felony conviction. Padieu v. Court of Appeals of Tex., Fifth Dist. , 392 S.W.3d 115, 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Intermediate appellate courts do not have jurisdiction over post

- conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 11.07; In re Briscoe , 230 S.W.3d 196, 196 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14 th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding). To complain about any action or inaction of the convicting court, relator may seek mandamus relief from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeal s

. See B riscoe , 230 S.W.3d at 196‒97. Relator seeks post

- conviction habeas relief from the trial court that entered a judgment of conviction on a felony charge. In his mandamus petition in our court, relator complains that the convicting trial court has not timely issued the writ or ruled on the application for the writ. We lack jurisdiction over relator’s request. Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Jewell and Poissant. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
----

| 1. | the      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | the      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the      Company. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Date:  March      31, 2009 |   |    |                                       |
|--------|--------------------------------------|--------|---------|--------------------------------------------|
|   |                                 |   | Signed: | /s/ Kelvin Claney                          |
|   |                                 |   |    | President      and Chief Executive Officer |
|   |                                 |   |    |                                       |
|   |                                 |   | Signed: | /s/ Richard Ransom                         |
|   |                                 |   |    | Chief      Financial Officer               |

----
Sandra Maria MATIAS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 16-6692.

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 12, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350,


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906
      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and
      Acting Chief Financial Officer of Bancorp International Group, Inc. (the
“Company”), hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report
      on Form 10-KSB/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006
      (the “Annual Report”) fully complies with the requirements of section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except with
      respect to the modification of the Certification of our Chief Executive Officer
      and Acting Chief Financial Officer attached as Exhibit 31.1 to the Annual
      Report, and that information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents,
      in
      all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the
      Company.




Date:
                May 20, 2008
            
            /s/
                THOMAS MEGASThomas
                Megas,
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              Acting
                Chief Financial Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED May 2, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51167 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus SELVIN LEONEL HERRERA-MEJIA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:06-CR-357-ALL

-------------------- Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Selvin Leonel Herrera-Mejia raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Richard James PULLEY, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9452.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2009069EN.01005402.xml

| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/54

---

Action brought on 21 January 2009 — De Britto Patricio-Dias v Commission

(Case F-4/09)

(2009/C 69/120)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jorge De Britto Patricio-Dias (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Massaux, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decision to reassign the applicant to unit TREN.B.3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | Annul the decisions of the Appointing Authority of 11 April 2008 and 21 October 2008; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions of the Appointing Authority of 11 April 2008 and 21 October 2008;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

---
# C_2012151EN.01000401.xml

| 26.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Post Danmark A/S v Konkurrencerådet

(Case C-209/10) (1)

1

(Article 82 EC - Postal undertaking with a dominant position subject to a universal service obligation with regard to certain addressed mail - Low prices charged to certain former customers of a competitor - No evidence relating to intention - Price discrimination - Selectively low prices - Actual or likely exclusion of a competitor - Effect on competition and, thereby, on consumers - Objective justification)

2012/C 151/06

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Referring court

Højesteret

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Post Danmark A/S

Applicant:

Defendant: Konkurrencerådet

Defendant:

Intervener: Forbruger-Kontakt a-s

Intervener:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Article 82 EC (now Article 102 TFEU) — Abuse of a dominant position — Postal undertaking holding a dominant position and subject to the obligation to distribute addressed letters and parcels, applying selective price reductions for distribution of unaddressed mail at levels lower than its overall average costs, but higher than its incremental average costs — Abuse aimed at eliminating a competitor

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 82 EC must be interpreted as meaning that a policy by which a dominant undertaking charges low prices to certain major customers of a competitor may not be considered to amount to an exclusionary abuse merely because the price that undertaking charges one of those customers is lower than the average total costs attributed to the activity concerned, but higher than the average incremental costs pertaining to that activity, as estimated in the procedure giving rise to the case in the main proceedings. In order to assess the existence of anti-competitive effects in circumstances such as those of that case, it is necessary to consider whether that pricing policy, without objective justification, produces an actual or likely exclusionary effect, to the detriment of competition and, thereby, of consumers’ interests.

---

(1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.

1

---
Presidential Documents

34353

Federal Register

Vol. 66, No. 125

Thursday, June 28, 2001

Title 3—

The President

Presidential Determination No. 2001–18 of June 8, 2001

Determination Under Section 405(a) of the Trade Act of

1974, as amended, Concerning the Socialist Republic of

Vietnam

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

Pursuant to the authority vested in me under the Trade Act of 1974, as

amended (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.) (the ‘‘Trade Act’’), I determine, pursuant

to section 405(a) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2435(a)), that the ‘‘Agreement

Between the United States of America and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam

on Trade Relations’’ will promote the purposes of the Trade Act and is

in the national interest.

You are authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal

Register.

[FR Doc. 01–16445

Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, June 8, 2001.

W

Billing code 4710–10–M
# C_2011152EN.01000802.xml

| 21.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 152/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.5.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 March 2011 — European Commission v Italian Republic

(Case C-50/10) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/1/EC - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Requirements for the granting of permits for existing installations)

2011/C 152/14

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: M. Russo, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) — Installations which could have an effect on emissions into the air, water or soil and on pollution — Authorisation conditions for existing installations

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (codifed version), by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of that directive or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that all existing installations within the meaning of Article 2(4) of that directive operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (codifed version), by failing to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of that directive or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that all existing installations within the meaning of Article 2(4) of that directive operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14(a) and (b) and 15(2) of that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.

1

---
# C_2012025EN.01001801.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 17 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Oliver Jestel v Hauptzollamt Aachen

(Case C-454/10) (1)

(Community Customs Code - Second indent of Article 202(3) - Customs debt incurred through unlawful introduction of goods - Meaning of ‘debtor’ - Participation in unlawful introduction - Person acting as intermediary in conclusion of contracts of sale relating to goods introduced unlawfully)

(2012/C 25/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Oliver Jestel

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Aachen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the second indent of Article 202(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Customs debt incurred through the unlawful introduction of goods into the customs territory of the European Union — Person acting as intermediary in conclusion of contracts of sale relating to goods introduced unlawfully without directly taking part in that introduction — Conditions under which such a person can be considered to be a debtor of a customs debt.

Operative part of the judgment

The second indent of Article 202(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that a person who, without being directly involved in the introduction of goods, participated in the introduction as intermediary in the conclusion of contracts of sale relating to those goods must be considered to be a debtor of a customs debt incurred through the unlawful introduction of goods into the customs territory of the European Union where that person was aware, or should reasonably have been aware, that that introduction was unlawful, which is a matter for the national court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.

---
Israel WEINGARTEN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-1138.

Supreme Court of the United States

March 19, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Post–Effective Amendment to Registration Statement No. 002-90649 on Form N-1A of our reports dated December 16, 2024, relating to the financial statements and financial highlights of Fidelity Sustainable International Equity Fund, Fidelity SAI Sustainable Emerging Markets Equity Fund, Fidelity SAI International SMA Completion Fund, Fidelity SAI Sustainable International Equity Fund and our reports  dated December 17, 2024, relating to the financial statements and financial highlights of Fidelity Series Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund, Fidelity Series International Small Cap Fund, Fidelity Series International Value Fund, Fidelity Series Emerging Markets Fund, Fidelity Series Overseas Fund, Fidelity Series Select International Small Cap Fund, Fidelity Series Sustainable Emerging Markets Fund, and Fidelity Series Sustainable Non-U.S. Developed Markets Fund, each a fund of Fidelity Investment Trust, appearing in the Annual Reports on Form N-CSR of Fidelity Investment Trust for the year ended October 31, 2024, and to the references to us under the headings “Financial Highlights” in the Prospectuses and “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” or “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firms” in the Statements of Additional Information, which are a part of such Registration Statement.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

December 19, 2024
II-00443

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Donald Granchi <granchini@ameritech.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 6:50 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Donald Granchi

5644 Kaufman

Dearborn Heights, MI 48125
2040 Projections

Energy Consumption – 2040 projections

1
Biojet

.

2
What is Biogas?

Capture & Extract 

Biogas is produced 

from various organic 

waste Processing 

Biogas is processed 

and purified to 

become pipeline–

quality biomethane, 

also known as 

renewable natural gas

Enters Natural Gas 

Pipeline Network

Biomethane (RNG) is 

compressed or 

liquefied and sent into 

fuel pipeline grid

Available as Fuel

Biomethane (RNG) is 

routed to CNG/LNG 

commercial fueling 

stations* or for use in 

heating and cooling

Feedstock

* Biogas is a competitive, renewable alternative to conventional fuels. As a vehicle fuel it provides an opportunity to 

generate RINS under the EPA RFS program and LCFS credits under CARB’s LCFS program.

3
4
# C_2012039EN.01000601.xml

| 11.2.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Banca Antoniana Popolare Veneta SpA, incorporating Banca Nazionale dell’Agricoltura SpA v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

(Case C-427/10) (1)

(VAT - Recovery of VAT paid but not due - National legislation under which actions may be brought for the recovery of sums paid but not due, before different courts and subject to different time-limits, depending on whether the claimant is the recipient of the services or their supplier - Possibility for the recipient to claim a VAT refund from the supplier after the expiry of the time-limits within which the supplier is able to bring an action against the tax authority - Principle of effectiveness)

(2012/C 39/08)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Banca Antoniana Popolare Veneta SpA, incorporating Banca Nazionale dell’Agricoltura SpA

Defendants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Interpretation of Article 17(3) of Directive 77/388/EEC: Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Recovery of tax paid but not due — National legislation under which actions may be brought for recovery before different courts and subject to different time-limits, depending on whether the claimant is the recipient/client of the service on which VAT was paid (10 years) or the supplier/provider of that service (2 years) — Possibility for the recipient/client to claim reimbursement of the VAT from the supplier/provider after expiry of the period during which the latter may bring an action — Principles of tax neutrality, effectiveness and non-discrimination

Operative part of the judgment

The principle of effectiveness does not preclude national rules governing the recovery of sums paid but not due, under which the time-limits for a civil law action for recovery of sums paid but not due, brought by the recipient of services against the supplier, a taxable person for the purposes of VAT, are more generous than the specific time-limits for a fiscal law action for a tax refund, brought by the supplier against the tax authority, provided that it is possible for that taxable person effectively to claim reimbursement of the VAT from the tax authority. That condition is not satisfied where the application of such rules has the effect of totally depriving the taxable person of the right to obtain from the tax authority a refund of the VAT paid but not due, which the taxable person has himself had to pay back to the recipient of his services.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.

---
Exhibit 32.1






CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




In connection with the Yearly Report of Sierra Resource Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K /A for the year ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick Champney, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)           The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and


(2)           The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




Registrant



Date: January 9, 2012

Sierra Resource Group, Inc.



By: /s/ J. ROD MARTINJ. ROD MARTINChief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)