alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Farm Credit Administration

          - 12 CFR Parts 607, 614, 615, and 620 
          - RIN 3052-AC09 

# AGENCY:

Farm Credit Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of effective date. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The Farm Credit Administration (FCA) published a final rule under parts 607, 614, 615, and 620 on June 17, 2005 (70 FR 35336). This final rule changed our regulatory capital standards on recourse obligations, direct credit substitutes, residual interests, asset- and mortgage-backed securities, claims on securities firms, and certain residential loans. In accordance with 12 U.S.C. 2252, the effective date of the final rule is 30 days from the date of publication in the                         **Federal Register**                         during which either or both Houses of Congress are in session. Based on the records of the sessions of Congress, the effective date of the regulation is September 8, 2005.                     

# EFFECTIVE DATE:

The regulation amending 12 CFR parts 607, 614, 615, and 620 published on June 17, 2005 (70 FR 35336) is effective September 8, 2005. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Donnelly, Senior Accountant, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4498, TTY (703) 883-4434; or 

Jennifer A. Cohn, Senior Attorney, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4020, TTY (703) 883-4020. 

(12 U.S.C. 2252(a)(9) and (10))

Dated: September 8, 2005. 

Jeanette C. Brinkley, 

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board. 

[FR Doc. 05-18285 Filed 9-14-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-75,996

EX PARTE JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. CR-4203-04-I(2) IN THE 398th DISTRICT COURT

FROM HIDALGO COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of capital murder

and sentenced to life imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to

timely file a notice of appeal. 

The trial court has determined, based upon an affidavit filed by counsel, that counsel failed

to timely file a notice of appeal. We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to
2

file an out-of-time appeal of the judgment of conviction in Cause No. CR-4203-04-I from the 398th

Judicial District Court of HIDALGO County. Applicant is ordered returned to that time at which

he may give a written notice of appeal so that he may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a

meaningful appeal. All time limits shall be calculated as if the sentence had been imposed on the

date on which the mandate of this Court issues. We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute

an appeal, he must take affirmative steps to file a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30

days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Delivered: September 10, 2008

Do Not Publish
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Forms S-3 (Nos. 333-86842 and 333-68283) and Forms S-8 (Nos.
333-42015, 333-78779, 333-90042 and 333-100214) of AMB Property, L.P. of our
reports dated February 13, 2004 relating to the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedules, which appear in this Form 10-K/A.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

San Francisco, California
March 12, 2004
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40718

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GUSTAVO VILLARREAL

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:05-CR-1640-6

Before SMITH, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gustavo Villarreal appeals the 188-month sentence following his guilty

plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute over five

kilograms of cocaine. He contends that he was entitled to a downward departure

for substantial assistance and that the Government’s failure to file a motion

pursuant to Section 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines revealed bad faith.

Villarreal also contends that his within-Guidelines sentence is unreasonable.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 11, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-40718

2

Villarreal was not entitled to a Section 5K1.1 motion. He has neither

established that the Government negotiated away its discretion to choose not to

file a motion, nor that the Government’s failure to file a motion was based on an

unconstitutional motive. See United States v. Aderholt, 87 F.3d 740, 742-43 (5th

Cir. 1996). Villarreal has not even shown that he did actually provide

substantial assistance. Id. 

Villarreal’s unreasonable-sentence argument also fails. Villarreal has not

established procedural error in the district court’s sentencing process. See Gall

v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Nor has he established that the

district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence within the applicable

Guidelines range, which is presumptively reasonable. See United States v.

Cisteros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 766 (5th Cir. 2008). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Opinion issued February 21, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00384-CV

———————————

PING HUI, Appellant

V.

T.J. MAXX OF TEXAS, INC., MARMAXX OPERATING CORP, D/B/A T.J. 

MAXX; & ANTHONY KELLUM; & MASSEY PROTECTION SERVICES, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 270th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2015-61011

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ping Hui, has failed to timely file a brief. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.6(a) (governing time to file brief), 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant to file 

brief). After being notified that this appeal was subject to dismissal, appellant did 
2

not adequately respond. See TEX.R. APP. P. 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal 

of case).

We dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to timely file a brief. 

We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Countiss.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

December 15, 2006

Mr. Craig A. Morgan

Attorney at Law

718 Sunfish 

Austin, TX 78734

Mr. Michael W. Eady

Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, L.L.P. 

701 Brazos, Suite 1500

Austin Centre

Austin, TX 78701

Mr. Alex M. Miller

Watts Law Firm, L.L.P.  

300 Convent Street , Suite 100

San Antonio, TX 78205

Mr. Jaime A. Saenz

Rodriguez, Colvin Chaney & Saenz, L.L.P.

P. O. Box 2155

Brownsville, TX 78522

Mr. Juan J. Hinojosa

Hinojosa & Powell, P.C.

612 Nolana, Suite 410

McAllen, TX 78504

RE:Case Number:  04-0794

Court of Appeals Number:  13-03-00476-CV

Trial Court Number:  28,564-A

Style:LAND ROVER U. K., LTD., LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA, INC., FORD MOTOR COMPANY, AND GUNN INFINITY, INC., D/B/A GUNN RANGE ROVER

v.

JUAN J. HINOJOSA

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 04-0794Page 2**
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6495

M. RODNEY E. JONES, a/k/a Rodney E. Jones, a/k/a Rodney M. Jones, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON E. OZMINT, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-03-2358-3) Submitted: February 25, 2005 Decided: April 1, 2005
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
M. Rodney E. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. David Michael Tatarsky, SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: M. Rodney E. Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
# C_2009180EN.01003601.xml

| 1.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 180/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/36

---

Order of the President of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of 6 March 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

(Case C-496/07) (1)

1

2009/C 180/62

Language of the case: Czech

Language of the case: Czech

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

1

---
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 May 2008 – Commission v Belgium**

**(Case C‐271/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 96/61/EC – Integrated pollution prevention and control – Incomplete and incorrect transposition

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 13)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Partial, incorrect or non-existent transposition of Article 2(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10) and (11), Article 3, Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 8, Article 9(3), (4), (5) and (6), Article 10, Article 12(2), Article 13(1) and (2), Article 14, Article 17(2) of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, and Annex I and Annex IV thereto (OJ 1996 L 257, p. 26) – Lack of correspondence between the material scope of application of those measures and that of the directive – Excessively wide power of assessment given to the regional authorities with regard to operating permits and the situations in which the conditions laid down under the permit must be re-assessed and/or updated. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that by transposing in part or incorrectly Article 2(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10) and (11), Article 3, Article 5, Article 6(1), Article 8, Article 9(3), (4), (5) and (6), Article 10, Article 12(2), Article 13(1) and (2) and Article 14 of Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control, and Annex I and Annex IV thereto, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
STATE of North Carolina v. Roy Eugene BRYANT.

No. COA15-1325.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Error.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                           27066
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    26341
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 53407
<PP&E>                                           13113
<DEPRECIATION>                                    7129
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   59391
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            45739
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       1785669
<OTHER-SE>                                   (1772017)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     59391
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 36514
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                219278
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                3361
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (182764)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (182764)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (182764)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)



</TABLE>
# C_2008171EN.01001101.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-341/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Enforcement of intellectual property rights - Failure to transpose within the prescribed time-limit)

(2008/C 171/18)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Wils and P. Dejmek, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Kruse, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to have adopted the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (OJ 2004 L 157, p. 45 and — corrigendum — OJ 2004 L 195, p. 16)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limit, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed time-limit, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to bear the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.

1

---
State of North Carolina v. Roger Wayne Williams

No. COA16-235

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: October 4, 2016

AFFIRMED.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Nevsun Resources Ltd. (the Company) on Form 40-F/A (Amended) for the year ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Cliff T. Davis, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and

2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/s/ Cliff T. Davis

Cliff T. Davis

Chief Financial Officer



June 28, 2006
# C_2008051EN.01004201.xml

| 23.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/42

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 January 2008 — Inter-Ikea OHIM — Waibel (idea)

(Case T-112/06) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark ‘idea’ - Earlier Community and national figurative and word marks ‘IKEA’ - Relative ground for invalidity - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2008/C 51/77)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Inter-Ikea Systems BV, (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Gulliksson and J. Olsson, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and intervener before the Court of First Instance: Walter Waibel (Dingolfing, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and intervener before the Court of First Instance:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2006 (Case R 80/2005-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Inter Ikea Systems BV and Walter Waibel.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Inter-Ikea Systems BV to pay the costs, including those incurred by Walter Waibel in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Inter-Ikea Systems BV to pay the costs, including those incurred by Walter Waibel in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.

1

---
James E. FULFORD Jr., Executor for the Estate of Mary Fulford v. Antionio Javon JENKINS; County of Duplin; Duplin County Department of Social Services; Millie I. Brown, individually and in her Official Capacity as Director of Duplin County Department of Social Services; De Wana Kenan, individually and in her Official Capacity as a Social Worker with the Duplin County Department of Social Services; Sherita Wright, individually and in her Official Capacity as a Social Worker with the Duplin County Department of Social Services; Nanette Smith, individually and in her Official Capacity as a Social Worker with the Duplin County Department of Social Services; and Elva Quinn, individually and in her Official Capacity as a Social Worker with the Duplin County Department of Social Services.

No. 127P09-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 17, 2016.

Christopher J. Geis, Winston-Salem, for Jenkins, Antionio Javon, et al.

Stephen M. Valentine, Beaufort, for Fulford, James E., Jr.

David McFadyen, New Bern, for Fulford, James E., Jr.

Bradley O. Wood, Winston-Salem, for Jenkins, Antionio Javon, et al.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 3rd of November 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of March 2016."
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 06-1860

ABRAHAM PHILIP,

Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

JOHN CRONIN,

Defendant, Appellee.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on August 7, 2008 is

amended as follows:

On page 17, footnote 3, line 2, delete the stray equals

sign.