alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00514-CR

Kyle Taylor, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 167TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-DC-23-200257, THE HONORABLE DAYNA BLAZEY, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief was originally due January 8, 2024. On March 11, 2024, this 

Court ordered appellant to file his brief by April 19, 2024, and informed him that a failure to file 

his brief would result in the referral of this case to the trial court for a hearing under Rule 38.8(b) 

of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. To date, the brief has not been tendered for filing 

and is overdue.

The appeal is abated and remanded to the trial court. The trial court shall conduct 

a hearing to determine whether appellant desires to prosecute this appeal and, if so, whether 

counsel has abandoned this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(b)(2), (3). The court shall make 

appropriate written findings and recommendations. See id. R. 38.8(b)(2), (3). If necessary, the 

court shall appoint substitute counsel who will effectively represent appellant in this appeal. 

Following the hearing, which shall be transcribed, the trial court shall order the appropriate 
2

supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records—including all findings and orders—to be prepared 

and forwarded to this Court no later than May 24, 2024. See id. R. 38.8(b)(3).

It is so ordered April 24, 2024.

Before Justices Baker, Triana and Kelly

Abated and Remanded

Filed: April 24, 2024

Do Not Publish
STATE v. VANBUREN

No. COA06-768.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 5, 2007.

Certification Date June 25, 2007.

Appeal from Warren (04CRS2001, 04CRS2002, 04CRS50909, 04CRS50959).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error in part; remanded for resentencing.
STATE v. EDWARDS.

No. COA06-961.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 3, 2007.

Certification Date July 23, 2007.

Appeal from the Mecklenburg (02CRS216576, 02CRS78775).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
STATE v. LEACH

No. COA06-1440

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed May 1, 2007

Certification Date May 21, 2007

Appeal from Davidson (05CRS52875).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
**EXHIBIT32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Brian F. Lavin,President and Chief Executive Officer of NTS Realty Capital, Inc., themanaging general partner of NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership (the “Company”),certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

 

1.                                       The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q ofthe Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 (the “Report”), whichaccompanies this certificate, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (15 U.S.C. 78m);and

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: | May 7, 2010                                    |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | */s/ Brian F. Lavin*                                | * * |
|   | Brian F. Lavin                                      |
| Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer of            |
|   | NTS Realty Capital, Inc., the Managing General |
|   | Partner of NTS Realty Holdings Limited Partnership  |

 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request. This certificate shall not, except to the extentrequired by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

 

----
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 423/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 423/2013 of 7 May 2013 entering a name in the register of protected designations            of origin and protected geographical indications [Stornoway Black Pudding (PGI)]         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 423/2013                     

# of 7 May 2013

# entering a name in the register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications [Stornoway Black                        Pudding (PGI)]                     

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

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

Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on quality                           schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs(1), and in particular Article 52(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 entered into force on 3 January                              2013. It repealed and replaced 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(2).

(2)Pursuant to Article 6(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, the United Kingdom’s application to register the name ‘Stornoway                              Black Pudding’ was published in the *Official Journal of the European Union* (3).

(3)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 1U.K.

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

# Article 2U.K.

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, 7 May 2013.

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

Dacian Cioloș                            

*Member of the Commission*                            

## ANNEXU.K.

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

### **Class 1.2.****Meat products (cooked, salted, smoked, etc.)**U.K.

#### UNITED KINGDOMU.K.

Stornoway Black Pudding (PGI)

1

OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.                           

3

OJ C 169, 15.6.2012, p. 25.
STATE v. ARNOLD

No. COA06-894

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed April 17, 2007

Certification Date May 7, 2007

Appeal from Catawba (05CRS6885, 05CRS6886).

Cases reported without published opinion. No error.
VAN REYPEN v. TEETER.

No. 84PA06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 6, 2006.

Charles M. Viser, Charlotte, for Van Reypen Associates, Inc.

D. Lane Matthews, Charlotte, for Gerald Teeter, et al.

Kimberly N. Overton, for NC Conference of DA.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 6th day of June 2006 by NC Conference of District Attorneys and NC Association of Police Attorneys for leave to file Amici Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amici Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i). By order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of June 2006."
#### George Thomas, Appellant, v Donald Thomas, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 768]

In an action to partition real property, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated November 17, 2003, which, sua sponte, confirmed a referee’s report dated August 7, 2003, and (2) an order of the same court (Douglass, J.), dated April 7, 2004, which, in effect, denied his motion, in effect, to vacate the prior order.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated November 17, 2003, is dismissed, as no appeal lies as of right from an order that does not decide a motion made on notice, and leave to appeal has not been granted *(see*CFLR 5701 [a] [2]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated April 7, 2004, is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

“The report of a Referee should be confirmed whenever the findings are substantially supported by the record, and the Referee has clearly defined the issues and resolved matters of credibility” *(Pittoni v Boland,*278 AD2d 396 [2000], quoting *Stone v Stone,*229 AD2d 388 [1996]; *see Matter of Smiros v Lopez,*251 AD2d 587 [1998]). Here, the referee’s findings regarding the distribution of the parties’ respective shares of the proceeds and the profits from the sale of the subject real property were substantially supported by the record. Thus, the Supreme Court *950properly, in effect, denied the plaintiff’s motion, in effect, to vacate the order dated November 17, 2003, which, sua sponte, confirmed the referee’s report.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., H. Miller, Ritter and Rivera, JJ., concur.
STATE v. Timmy SPEIGHT.

No. 491PA04-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 16, 2006.

Patricia A. Duffy, Assistant Attorney General, Clark Everett, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*543Margaret Creasy Ciardella, Hampstead, Barbara S. Blackman, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Speight.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 16th day of October 2006 by Attorney General for Leave to File Reply Brief:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 16th day of October 2006."
In re R.L.C.

No. 531A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

November 8, 2006.

Constance Widenhouse, Assistant Appellate Defender, for R.L.C.

Michael Kent Curtis, Winston-Salem, Shannon Gilreath, Robert N. Hunter, Jr., Greensboro, for NCATL, et al.

Theresa A. Newman, for Professor Erwin Chemerinsky.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th day of November 2006 by Attorney General for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief to Amicus Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Attorney General shall have up to and including the 11th day of December 2006 to file and serve his/her reply brief with this Court. By order of *549the Court in conference this the 8th day of November 2006."
OAKLEY v. BARKLEY

No. COA04-67.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 16, 2004

Certification Date December 6, 2004

Case Reported Without Published Opinion. Dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3113 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3113

To reinstate the Interim Management Strategy governing off-road vehicle 
use in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina, pending the 
issuance of a final rule for off-road vehicle use by the National Park 
                                Service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 11, 2008

  Mrs. Dole (for herself and Mr. Burr) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To reinstate the Interim Management Strategy governing off-road vehicle 
use in the Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina, pending the 
issuance of a final rule for off-road vehicle use by the National Park 
                                Service.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CAPE HATTERAS NATIONAL SEASHORE, NORTH CAROLINA.

    (a) Reinstatement of Interim Management Strategy.--During the 
period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on the 
date on which the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the 
Director of the National Park Service, issues a special regulation and 
long-term off-road vehicle management plan for the use of Cape Hatteras 
National Seashore, North Carolina (referred to in this section as the 
``Seashore''), the Seashore shall be managed in accordance with the 
Interim Protected Species Management Strategy/Environmental Assessment 
issued by the National Park Service on June 13, 2007.
    (b) Inapplicability of Consent Decree.--The consent decree dated 
April 30, 2008, and filed in the United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of North Carolina regarding off-road vehicle use at 
the Seashore shall not apply after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
BEE v. PURSER CONST. SERVICE

No. COA06-900

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed April 17, 2007

Certification Date May 7, 2007

Appeal from NC Industrial Commission (I.C.#140822).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. SLOAN AND WOOTEN.

No. 24A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 15, 2007.

Nora Henry Hargrove, for Sloan.

Norman Young, Jr., Thomas Meacham, Jr., Assistant Attorney Generals, C. Branson Vickory, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 13th day of March 2007 by Defendant for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Wooten) shall have up to and including the 16th day of April 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 15th day of March 2007."
STATE v. WEBB

No. COA06-1198

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed May 1, 2007

Certification Date May 21, 2007

Appeal from Mecklenburg (03CRS253130, 03CRS253131).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# Council Implementing Decision 2013/46/CFSPShow full title

Council Implementing Decision 2013/46/CFSP of 22 January 2013 implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures            against the Democratic Republic of the Congo         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Implementing Decision 2013/46/CFSP                     

# of 22 January 2013

# implementing Decision 2010/788/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic Republic of the Congo

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2010/788/CFSP of 20 December 2010 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic                           Republic of the Congo(1), and in particular Article 6 thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)On 20 December 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/788/CFSP.

(2)On 31 December 2012, the Security Council Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1533                              (2004) concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, updated the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures                              imposed pursuant to paragraphs 13 and 15 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1596 (2005).

(3)The Annex to Decision 2010/788/CFSP should therefore be updated accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

The persons and entities listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be added to the list set out in the Annex to Decision                     2010/788/CFSP.                  

# Article 2U.K.

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

Done at Brussels, 22 January 2013.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

M. Noonan                            

## ANNEXU.K.**List of persons and entities referred to in Article 1**

### (a)

### Persons

### (b)

### Entities

1

OJ L 336, 21.12.2010, p. 30.
----

**EXHIBIT      32.3**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE**

**SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002**

| (1)    | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period                ended June 30, 2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the                requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange                Act of                1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          |
| (2)    | the                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                Company.                                                                                                                                              |

----
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5745 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5745

To amend the Missing Children's Assistance Act to expand the definition 
               of missing child for purposes of that Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 9, 2008

 Mr. Lampson (for himself, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Gene 
Green of Texas, Mr. Kagen, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Udall of Colorado, and Mr. 
Poe) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 
                         on Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Missing Children's Assistance Act to expand the definition 
               of missing child for purposes of that Act.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE MISSING CHILDREN'S ASSISTANCE ACT.

    Section 403(1) of the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
5772(1)) is amended--
            (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking 
        ``whose whereabouts are unknown to such individual's legal 
        custodian if'',
            (2) in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C)--
                    (A) by redesignating such subparagraphs as clauses 
                (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively, and
                    (B) by indenting the left margin of such 
                subparagraphs 2 ems to the right,
            (3) by inserting before clause (i), as so redesignated, the 
        following:
                    ``(A) whose whereabouts are unknown to such 
                individual's legal custodian if--'', and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(B) whose whereabouts are known to such 
                individual's legal custodian from whose control such 
                child--
                            ``(i) was removed in violation of law; or
                            ``(ii) is believed by such custodian to 
                        have been taken out of the United States 
                        without the consent of such custodian by, or 
                        for the benefit of, an individual who may 
                        possibly claim custodial rights with respect to 
                        such child;''.
                                 <all>
```
STATE v. Keith Dedrick WILEY.

No. 100A01.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 16, 2001.

Motion by Defendant for Extension of Time to Serve Proposed Record on Appeal has been filed and the following order entered:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant shall have up to and including the 22nd day of March 2001 to serve his/her proposed record upon the district attorney. The parties shall then proceed to settle and file the record on appeal pursuant to the provisions of Appellate Rules 11 and 12. By order of the Court in conference this the 16th day of February 2001."
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5764 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5764

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a continuous levy 
            on payments to Medicaid providers and suppliers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 10, 2008

  Mr. Emanuel (for himself and Mr. Ramstad) introduced the following 
      bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a continuous levy 
            on payments to Medicaid providers and suppliers.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Medicaid Levy Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. CONTINUOUS LEVY ON PAYMENTS TO MEDICAID PROVIDERS AND 
              SUPPLIERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 6331(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (defining specified payment) is amended by striking ``and'' at the 
end of subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end of 
subparagraph (C) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at the end the 
following new subparagraph:
                    ``(D) any payment to any medicaid provider or 
                supplier under a State plan under title XIX of the 
                Social Security Act.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to levies issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
SCHENKEL & SHULTZ v. FOX & ASSO.

No. 631A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 15, 2007.

David G. Redding, Adrianne Huffman, Charlotte, for Fox & Associates.

Kiran H. Mehta, Seton B. Hunt, Charlotte, Herbert W. Hamilton, Christi P. Cox, for Schenkel & Shultz.

Katherine Jane Allen, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Troy Chivers.

The following order has been entered on the amended motion filed on the 14th day of March 2007 by Plaintiff for Admission of Counsel Pro Hac Vice:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 15th day of March 2007."

Justice HUDSON recused.
FRANKLIN v. BRITTHAVEN, INC.

COA05-1603.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed October 17, 2006.

Certification Date November 6, 2006.

Appeal from Wayne (04CVS593)

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.