alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AUSTIN
~c.MAWW ,-FIQS"l"aL

HonorableII.

L. Rln8oII,

Jr. CountyAadftor Polk County Litiqston; Texar OplJAilm Ho. 0-M Dear Sir! ml ma oh.



### of **thfr part** a8 **Your** letteroi

Dqmrtmont on the 

### follon:

on Ko. O-601 thi8 Departmentheld that tb oomdrrionerr~ Oonrfi 00~14 not lagallytransfermemey fma the Jurymnd into th6 @enera run& Wo sneleraa copy ot thfs Opinfbnfor rour someniana*~Ronorable t. L. Hlnson,Jr., Pago 2

In Opinion Eo. 04186 thia DepartmenthaM that the Commiaaloneras **court** oould not le~gally **reirabume** tlm Road and BridgeFund **from** other available oonnty fands In rhloh therewas a eurpl!~. **A** oopy **ai** th;$ Opinionis MIrlored.
In the ease of CarrollWI. WillIama,202 8.W. 804, the Supme Court of Texas deilnlt~l I hold tha$ the Jar7 l&14 and other aonatitutional fund8 thara II doslgnsted oarpoaed or runda raised by taxation oould **not be**  legally **tranar8rb** froa on8 to 8nothex. emd that art1010 16S0, Vernon*8 Annotated C1rl.l Statutea, hamaaplloatlon to epeolal fund8 oraatod by Status@ an4 **was not**  

### l

**pplloable to**  oonatltutlonal rland8.The 00wt wmt further an4 held In the Oarroll oasa that Seotion 0, Axtlole b ot the State Constitution not only plaooQ a llmitatlon on tbo amount ot taxes which m.i&htbe levied b pa68 tbereln enumrated, **but** alao 408I any ooonty ior the purgnatml and pleoed ,a lsaitatlon on the amount to **bo** oxpandbd,. in that tax68 a-aired ior one purfloaa, therein dorined oould not **be** 

### l xpenUe6 ior any o$hsr **purpoao.** The Jury Fund, the Oaaeral Fuad, and tho Road ad (’ Brldgr mud are oonstltutlonal rMd8. Therefore, In via or the holdlp& la the Carroll oa80 au_aras and the autharitiea ofted in the, **above** m8WOnod Ophhb%+t **you** am **raapwttltll~** 

### l **dri;re&** that it ia the epin&m ot’tti& Apartment that tk 6omniaalonera~ Oourt 

### oannot legllf trasr*r monoj rroa the Jury **Fund,** to the Getlsral Fund **or** to the Road and BriUSe Fund, although there la a surplus in the **fury FurA.** 

It Is our tarther opinion that the or5sr br the comiaalonera~ ceurt as aentlonenl In your lsttsr quotd ahow i8 void and 0r n0 6rre0t.

Trustingthat tho foregain ml7 amtiers your Inquiry, w8 am
Your8 **very** *rally
,. ArnHHl?Yf.m??!mLOFTEXAS &;,c$g’dL Hy @w!h%ti*

,s ::.,TV,! hrdnllWililamm Amdstant
STATE OF TEXAS

PENA

PRIVATETM*- TM

9/11/2015 SSffeZI

jZIP 78701 02 W

0001401623SEP 18 2015

APPLEGATE, JEFFERY DUANE\TrpSOlo.?F8599 A

On this day, the application f—jH" '

and presented to the Court ETURN TO SENDfcf.

NOT INJAIOTeGOM JAIL

TARRANT COUNTY JAIL - TDC # 1804949

100 N.LAMAR

FORT WORTH, TX 76102

WR-83,881-01

Corpus has been received

Abel Acosta, Clerk
___________ No. 96-1637

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Ronald Russ, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 4, 1996 Filed: September 10, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In this d irect criminal appeal, Ronald Russ challenges his 63-month sentence of imprisonment imposed after he was co nvicted of possession with intent to distribute heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) an d (b) (1)(B)(i). Russ contends the district court should have applied th e safety-valve provisio n of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 and sentenced him to 36 months imprisonment so he could participate in a special Bureau of Prison s substance-abuse treatment program.
Although the Guidelines allow a sentencing court to disregard th e statutory minimum for selected crimes and to sentence within the Guideline s range when a defendant meets certain criteria, section 5C1.2 does not appl y here be cause the statutory minimum sentence--60 months--is lower tha n Russ's 63- to-78-month Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f); 2 1 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (i) (five-year statutory minimum); U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2;-2-

Unite d States v. Goodwin , 72 F.3d 88, 90 (8th Cir. 1995) (safety-valv e provision provides re lief when mandatory minimum sentence is greater than applicable Guidelines sentence). Section 5C1.2 does not authoriz e departure below the Guidelines range. See United States v. Collins , 66 F.3 d 984, 987-88 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (reduced sentence must be within Guidelines range and departure below said range is not authorized).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# L_2014045EN.01004001.xml

| 15.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 45/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 45/40

---

Corrigendum to Council Decision 2013/685/CFSP of 26 November 2013 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 316 of 27 November 2013, p. 46
  )

Annex, page 48, entry 10 (Khazar Shipping Lines (Bandar Anzali)), third column (Reasons)

For:

‘Marble Shipping Limited (Malta) is owned by IRISL.’

Read:

‘Khazar Shipping Lines is owned by IRISL.’;

Annex, page 48, entry 11 (Marble Shipping Limited (Malta)), third column (Reasons)

For:

‘Entity owned by IRISL.’

Read:

‘Marble Shipping Limited (Malta) is owned by IRISL.’.

---
Alec WHITTAKER, Plaintiff v. Robert W. TODD d/b/a Southern Interiors, Defendant.

No. 163P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

Malcolm E. Whittaker, Houston, TX, for Alec Whittaker.

Robert W. Tood, Pro Se.

Prior report: ___ N.C.App. ___, 625 S.E.2d 860.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 28th day of March 2006 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following *63order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1137/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1137/2013 of 12 November 2013 establishing the standard import values for determining            the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1137/2013                     

# of 12 November 2013

# establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application                           of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors(2), and in particular Article 136(1) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations,                              the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products                              and periods stipulated in Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU)                              No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its                              publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The standard import values referred to in Article 136 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 are fixed in the Annex to                     this Regulation.                  

# Article 2U.K.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 12 November 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

## ANNEXU.K.Standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 157, 15.6.2011, p. 1.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 19

- 00623

- CR

AMBER NICOLE SORENSON

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 24th District Court of Jackson County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. 17

- 5

- 9932

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. October 14, 2021
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARSHALL E. MIKELS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

JAN ESTEP; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15602 

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-00056-EMC 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 26, 2017**

Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Marshall E. Mikels appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his

post-judgment motion for relief from the district court’s order dismissing his action 

alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and other claims. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

OCT 4 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-15602 

district court’s denial of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. Casey v. 

Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254, 1257 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by construing Mikels’s motion 

to vacate as a Rule 60(b) motion and denying it because Mikels failed to file the 

motion “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1); Ashford v. Steuart, 

657 F.2d 1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 1981) (setting forth factors to determine whether a 

Rule 60(b) motion was filed within a “reasonable time”).

Appellees’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 50) is denied as 

unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. Steve McCLENNY.

No. 594P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 28, 2005.

Steve McClenny, Pro Se.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 24th day of October 2005 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Sampson County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th day of October 2005."
# L_2012302EN.01000301.xml

| 31.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 302/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 302/3

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 1005/2012

of 25 October 2012

entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Papas Antiguas de Canarias (PDO)]

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (1), and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 7(4) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‧Papas Antiguas de Canarias‧ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, Spain’s application to register the name ‧Papas Antiguas de Canarias‧ was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).

| (2) | As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

As no statement of objection under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 has been received by the Commission, that name should therefore be entered in the register,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The name contained in the Annex to this Regulation is hereby entered in the register.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 25 October 2012.

For the Commission, On behalf of the President,

Dacian CIOLOȘ

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

1

(2)  
  OJ C 31, 4.2.2012, p. 18.

2

---

ANNEX

Agricultural products intended for human consumption listed in Annex I to the Treaty:

Class 1.6.   Fruit, vegetables and cereals, fresh or processed

SPAIN

Papas Antiguas de Canarias (PDO)

---
Rosalyn HARRIS-OFFUT v. THE NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF LICENSED PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS.

No. 3P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 29, 2006.

King V. Cheek, Jr., Romallus O. Murphy, Greensboro, for Harris-Offutt.

William H. Borden, Special Deputy Attorney General, for Board of LPC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the conditional petition filed on the 12th day of January 2006 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 29th day of June 2006."
Exhibit 11

PAULA FINANCIAL AND SUBSIDIARIES  Computation of Basic and Diluted Earnings Per Share

(In
thousands, except per share data)

|                                                                             |  | Three Months Ended
June 30, |           | Six Months Ended
June 30, |  
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------- | --------- | ------------------------- | -
|
|Net income (loss)                                                            |  | $                           | 215       |                           | $
|                                                                             |  |                             |           |                           |  
|Weighted average shares outstanding for calculating basic earnings per share |  |                             | 5,372,737 |                           |  
|Options                                                                      |  |                             |          |                           |  
|                                                                             |  |                             |           |                           |  
|Total shares for calculating diluted earnings per share                      |  |                             | 5,372,737 |                           |  
|                                                                             |  |                             |           |                           |  
|Basic earnings (loss) per share                                              |  | $                           | 0.04      |                           | $
|                                                                             |  |                             |           |                           |  
|Diluted earnings (loss) per share                                            |  | $                           | 0.04      |                           | $
|                                                                             |  |                             |           |                           |  

---

QuickLinks
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 02-4944



# 

V ERNON D ERL B ELL ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-02-105)
Submitted: July 15, 2003
Decided: August 1, 2003
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL
Henry E. Wood, III, WOOD LAW OFFICE, L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, L. Anna Crawford, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION

PER CURIAM:
Vernon Derl Bell appeals his fifteen month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341(2000). Bell contests the district court’s mass-marketing enhancement. We review the district court’s factual determinations concerning the application of the Sentencing Guidelines for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Daughtrey , 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989). Bell argues that the district court erred in enhancing his offense level two levels because his passive conduct did not satisfy the requirements of the mass-marketing enhancement of U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

§ 2F1.1(b)(3) (2000). That section provides that an offense committed through mass-marketing warrants a two-levelincrease in offense level. The guidelines commentary defines massmarketing as "a plan, program, promotion, or campaign that is conducted through solicitation by telephone, mail, the Internet, or other means to induce a large number of persons to (A) purchase goods or services; (B) participate in a contest or sweepstakes; or (C) to invest for financial profit." USSG § 2F1.1 comment. (n.3). From November 2000 to April 2001, Bell sold sports cards via online auction to 186 customers. He defrauded these customers out of more than $150,000 by auctioning sports collectibles on the eBay website, which is visited by millions of people, and failing to ship the goods upon payment. This conduct falls squarely within the two-level enhancement for mass-marketing. See United States v. Magnuson
, 307 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2002), cert. denied , 123 S. Ct. 1008 (2003); United States v. Pirello , 255 F.3d 728 (9th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 1034 (2001).We therefore affirm Bell’s sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions have been adequately presented in the written materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 2 U NITED S TATES v. B ELL
## In T he Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 21 - 00230 - CV JUSTIN WAYNE LAPREE , A PPELLANT V. BRINK BENNETT FLAHERTY GOLDEN, PLLC AND RHONDA H. BRINK , APPELLEE S On Appeal from the 200th District Court

Travis County, Texas Trial Court No . D - 1 - GN - 19 - 007307 , Honorable Dustin Howell , Presiding



### August 3 , 2022 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ. Appellant, Justin Wayne LaPree , appeal s from the trial court’s final judgment . 1 Now pending before this C ourt is LaPree ’s unopposed motion seeking voluntary dismissal of the appeal. The C ourt finds that the motion to dismiss complies with the requirements of Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) and that granting the motion will n ot prevent

1 Originally appealed to the Third Court of Appeals, this appeal was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001.2

any party from seeking relief to which it would otherwise be entitled. As no decision of the C ourt has been delivered to date, we grant the motion. The appeal is dismissed. Because the motion does not reflect an agreement of the parties conce rning the payment of costs, costs will be taxed against LaPree . See T EX . R. A PP . P . 42.1(d). No motion for rehearing will be entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith. Per Curiam
Exhibit 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Vice President and Cashier of
Communitycorp (the Company), each certify that, to his or her knowledge on the date of this certification:



| | 1. | The annual report of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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 22, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ W. Roger Crook                   
|                     |  |     |  | W. Roger Crook                       
|                     |  |     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



|                     |  |     |  |                           
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------
|Date: March 22, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Gwendolyn P. Bunton   
|                     |  |     |  | Gwendolyn P. Bunton       
|                     |  |     |  | Vice President and Cashier