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

San Antonio, Texas

January 3, 2023

No. 04-22-00867-CR

Santos REINA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 19-1069-CR-B

Honorable William D. Old III, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant Santos Reina filed a motion seeking access to a portion of the record that is 

sealed. The motion is GRANTED. The Clerk of this court is instructed to provide a copy of the 

sealed record to appellant’s attorney. All parties and their attorneys are ORDERED not to share 

the contents of the sealed record with any person except to the extent necessary to prepare their 

respective briefs.

In the event the parties reference the sealed record in their respective briefs, they are 

ORDERED to comply with the following procedure:

1. The party filing the brief must file the brief in paper form only, with a 

cover letter informing the Clerk of this court that the brief references the sealed 

record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.2(c)(3) (exception to electronic filing for documents 

under seal).

2. Concurrently, the party must file a notice stating whether the brief 

discloses protected information and where in the brief such information is 

disclosed.

3. Within seven days after the brief is filed, the opposing party may file a 

notice stating whether the brief discloses protected information and where in the 

brief such information is disclosed.

4. After receiving the notice or notices, this court will determine whether 

the brief or a portion of the brief will remain filed under seal. This court may 

FILE COPY
order a party to file a redacted brief or order other measures less restrictive than 

the sealing of the entire brief.

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

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

court on this 3rd day of January, 2023.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-20146

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

SERGIO FERNANDO LAGOS, 

 Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CR-554-1

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in this case, see Lagos v. 

United States, 138 S. Ct. 1684 (2018), this matter is REMANDED to the district 

court with instructions to delete from the restitution order $4,895,469.73 for 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

August 27, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-20146 Document: 00514616979 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/27/2018
No. 16-20146

2

General Electric Capital Corporation’s legal, expert, and consulting fees 

incurred in investigating the fraud and its legal fees incurred in bankruptcy 

proceedings. 

 Case: 16-20146 Document: 00514616979 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/27/2018
II-01099

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

karl Novak <kavon95 @gmavt.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:14 AM

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.

karl Novak

95 red truck lane

Hinesburg, VT 5461
---

---

Exhibit 13.1

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 Optibase Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F
for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby
certify that to the best of our knowledge:

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 results of operations of the Company.

Date: June 27, 2008

| |                                 |              
| | ------------------------------- | -------------
| |                                 | /s/ Tom Wyler
| |                                
| | Name: Tom
 Wyler               
| | Title: Chief
 Executive Officer

---

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7087

JACKIE HUGHES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD HUTCHINSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-00-3103)

Submitted: November 8, 2001 Decided: November 16, 2001

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jackie Hughes, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jackie Hughes seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. See Hughes v. Hutchinson, No. CA00-3103 (D. Md. June 15, 2001). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 14, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

131670 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. TIMOTHY JORDAN, Personal Stephen J. Markman, Representative of the Estate of Justices Sandra Jordan, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 131670 COA: 259224 Monroe CC: 04-017775-NH MERCY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DAVID EUGENE SZYMANSKI, M.D., and SYED HASSAN, M.D., Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of April 13, 2007 , the application for leave to appeal the April 25, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals was he ld in abeyance pend ing the decision in Mullins v St Joseph Mercy Hosp (Docket No. 131879). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on November 28, 2007, _ __ Mich ___ (2007), the app lication is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to ap peal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and REMA ND this case to the Monroe Circuit Court for entry of an order deny ing the defendants' motion fo r summary disposition and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this order and the order in Mullins

.

l1211 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 14, 2007

Clerk
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 State

          - [Public Notice: 11714]

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Alison Welcher, Executive Director, Advisory Committee on International Law, Department of State, at 202-647-1646 or                         *welcherar@state.gov.*

Alison R. Welcher,

Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2022-08208 Filed 4-15-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                             506
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   40,798
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,373)
<INVENTORY>                                     28,720
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                74,341
<PP&E>                                          64,830
<DEPRECIATION>                                (12,674)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 312,735
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,864
<BONDS>                                        179,801
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        89,823
<OTHER-SE>                                    (20,774)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   312,735
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               154,924
<CGS>                                          125,349
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  125,349
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,427
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,348
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,755
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (16,972)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (5,072)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (11,900)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (11,900)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 3211-010]

      ( print page 22202)    
                    On March 11, 2022, the Power Authority of the State of New York submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) evidence of its application for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (New York DEC), in conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to section 401 of the Clean Water Act [1]                                          and section 5.23(b) of the Commission's regulations,[2]                                          a state certifying agency is deemed to have waived its certifying authority if it fails or refuses to act on a certification request within a reasonable period of time, which is one year after the date the certification request was received. Accordingly, we hereby notify New York DEC of the following:                

*Date that New York DEC Received the Certification Request:*                     March 11, 2022.                

If New York DEC fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before March 11, 2023, then the agency certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).

Dated: April 7, 2022.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             18 CFR [4.34(b)(5)/5.23(b)/153.4/157.22].                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2022-08036 Filed 4-13-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Robert Edward TORRES, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8115.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# L_2006092EN.01004601.xml

| 30.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 92/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 92/46

---

DECISION OF THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE

No 17/2006

of 27 January 2006

amending Protocol 31 to the EEA Agreement, on cooperation in specific fields outside the four freedoms

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Agreement’, and in particular Articles 86 and 98 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Protocol 31 to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 129/2005 of 30 September 2005 (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Protocol 31 to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 129/2005 of 30 September 2005 (1).

| (2) | It is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the Agreement to include Decision No 854/2005/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 on establishing a multiannual Community Programme on promoting safer use of the Internet and new online technologies (2). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

It is appropriate to extend the cooperation of the Contracting Parties to the Agreement to include Decision No 854/2005/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 on establishing a multiannual Community Programme on promoting safer use of the Internet and new online technologies (2).

| (3) | Protocol 31 to the Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended cooperation to take place with effect from 1 January 2006, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Protocol 31 to the Agreement should therefore be amended in order to allow for this extended cooperation to take place with effect from 1 January 2006,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following indent shall be added in Article 2(5) of Protocol 31 to the Agreement:

| ‘— | 32005 D 0854: Decision No 854/2005/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 on establishing a multiannual Community Programme on promoting safer use of the Internet and new online technologies (OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 1).’ |
| --- | --- |

‘—

32005 D 0854: Decision No 854/2005/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 on establishing a multiannual Community Programme on promoting safer use of the Internet and new online technologies (OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 1).’

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following the last notification to the EEA Joint Committee under Article 103(1) of the Agreement (*1).

It shall apply from 1 January 2006.

Article 3

This Decision shall be published in the EEA Section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 27 January 2006.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

R. WRIGHT

---

(1)  
  OJ L 339, 22.12.2005, p. 55.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 149, 11.6.2005, p. 1.

2

(*1)  Constitutional requirements indicated.

*1

---
Julius Ferrell BLACK, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8194.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 16, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          15,001
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  108,006
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,933
<INVENTORY>                                    368,610
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               481,706
<PP&E>                                       1,083,586
<DEPRECIATION>                                (349,994)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,306,814
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          399,478
<BONDS>                                      1,075,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           350
<OTHER-SE>                                    (436,017)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,306,814
<SALES>                                        418,791
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               418,791
<CGS>                                          321,717
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  321,717
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   662
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              25,401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 16,058
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,950
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,108
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,108
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .32
        

</TABLE>
Roberto Carlos Rivera CASANOVA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-5188.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 2, 2017.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-24-00069-CV

___________________________

Original Proceeding

48th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 048-323196-21

Before Wallach, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN RE PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP, PHIPPS DEACON PURNELL 

PLLC, AND PHIPPS MAYES PLLC, Relators
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The court has considered relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and motion 

for emergency relief and is of the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, 

relators’ petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief are denied.

Per Curiam

Delivered: February 20, 2024
Enrique Fernando SALAZAR-VALENCIA, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-8912.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 18, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.