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

San Antonio, Texas

June 28, 2018

No. 04-18-00422-CR

IN RE Richard LARES

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

On June 22, 2018, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus. The court has 

determined that it lacks jurisdiction to consider relator’s petition. Accordingly, the petition is 

DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). The court’s opinion 

will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on June 28, 2018.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 28th day of June, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2006CR10110, styled The State of Texas v. Richard Lares, pending in the 

399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Frank J. Castro presiding.
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #10203 and #10204]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Texas (FEMA-1606-DR), dated 09/24/2005. *Incident:*
                         Hurricane Rita. *Incident Period:*
                         09/23/2005 and continuing. *Effective Date:*
                         09/24/2005. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         11/23/2005. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         06/26/2006.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area Office 3, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 09/24/2005, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Chambers, Galveston, Hardin, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Newton, Orange, and Tyler. *Contiguous Counties/Parishes:**Texas:* Angelina, Brazoria, Harris, Montgomery, Polk, Sabine, San Augustine, and San Jacinto. *Louisiana:* Beauregard, Calcasieu, Cameron, Sabine, and Vernon. The Interest Rates are: PercentHomeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere:
5.375Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere:
2.687Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere:
6.557Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit Available Elsewhere:
4.000Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) With Credit Available Elsewhere:
4.750Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere:
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 102038 and for economic injury is 102040. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 05-19836 Filed 10-3-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
SUNTRUST BANK v. LILLISTON et al.

A16A1318

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

February 22, 2018

Morris, Manning & Martin,David W. Cranshaw, Simon R. Malko, for appellant.

Savage, Turner & Pinckney, Brent J. Savage, Brent J. Savage, Jr., for appellees.

Branch, Judge.

In *SunTrust Bank v. Lilliston* , 338 Ga. App. 738, 791 S.E.2d 614 (2016), this Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the appellant had waived its right to arbitration in a renewed action by acting inconsistently with that right in the original action. The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari and reversed our decision. See *SunTrust Bank v. Lilliston* , 302 Ga. 840, 809 S.E.2d 819 (Case No. S17G0433, decided Jan. 29, 2018). We therefore vacate our previous opinion, adopt the decision of the Supreme Court as our own, and reverse the judgment below.

*Judgment reversed.*

Ellington, P. J., and Mercier, J., concur.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4331 

To require a 50 percent reduction in the number of limousines in the Federal 

fleet. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 27, 2014 

Mr. BARROW of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To require a 50 percent reduction in the number of 

limousines in the Federal fleet. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN LIMOUSINES IN FEDERAL 

4 FLEET. 

5 (a) REQUIREMENT.—Notwithstanding any other pro6 vision of law and except as provided in subsection (b), for 

7 fiscal year 2015 and each fiscal year thereafter, the num8 ber of limousines in the Federal fleet shall not exceed 50 

9 percent of the number of limousines in the Federal fleet 

10 as of the last day of fiscal year 2014. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4331 IH

1 (b) EXCEPTION FOR NATIONAL SECURITY.—Sub2 section (a) shall not apply with respect to any limousine 

3 determined by the President to be essential for reasons 

4 of national security. 

Æ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Order entered August 30, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00065-CR

TISHAWN JAHMAI HELTON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F17-76320-I

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s August 27, 2019 third motion to extend the time to file 

appellant’s brief. The brief was tendered with the motion. We GRANT the motion and 

ORDER appellant’s brief filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Harrison HALL, Employee v. U.S. XPRESS, INC., Employer, and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Carrier

No. 12P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 2018

Matthew J. Ledwith, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, M. Duane Jones, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for U.S. Xpress, Inc., et al.

R. James Lore, Attorney at Law, James S. Aven, Attorney at Law, for Hall, Harrison.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of January 2018 by Defendants for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 9th of May 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendants on the 9th of January 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the 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 9th of May 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 9th of January 2018 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals *236pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, 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 9th of May 2018."
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 Quarterly Report of Clean Power Technologies Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Abdul Mitha, President and Principal Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  January 14, 2008

By:  /s/ Abdul Mitha_____________________

Name: Abdul Mitha

Title:    President (Principal Executive Officer)
# Official Journal C 126I/2022

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 126I |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6521 March 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 126I

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6521 March 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2022/C 126 I/01 | Communication from the Commission on Operational guidelines for the implementation of Council implementing Decision 2022/382 establishing the existence of a mass influx of displaced persons from Ukraine within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2001/55/EC, and having the effect of introducing temporary protection | 1 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2022/C 126 I/01

Communication from the Commission on Operational guidelines for the implementation of Council implementing Decision 2022/382 establishing the existence of a mass influx of displaced persons from Ukraine within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2001/55/EC, and having the effect of introducing temporary protection

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2005,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark L. Heimbouch, as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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/ Mark L. Heimbouch

|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|Mark L. Heimbouch                                   
|Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|September 14, 2005
SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


Parent
------

TF Financial Corporation


                                               Percentage        Jurisdiction of
Subsidiaries                                   Owned             Incorporation
------------                                   -----             -------------

Third Federal Savings Bank (a)                 100%              United States

TF Investments Corporation (a)                 100%              Delaware

Teragon Financial Corporation (a)              100%              Pennsylvania

Penns Trail Development Corporation (a)        100%              Delaware

Third Delaware Corporation (a)(b)              100%              Delaware


---------------
(a)  The  operations  of  this  subsidiary  are  included  in  the  consolidated
     financial  statements  contained in the 2002 Annual Report to  Stockholders
     incorporated herein by reference.

(b)  Third Delaware  Corporation  is a wholly-owned  subsidiary of Third Federal
     Savings Bank.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4507 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to require a State with an increase 

in the number of fatalities or serious injuries of pedestrians or users 

of nonmotorized forms of transportation to include strategies to address 

the increase in the State’s subsequent State strategic highway safety 

plan, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2014 

Mr. CROWLEY (for himself and Mr. LOBIONDO) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend title 23, United States Code, to require a State 

with an increase in the number of fatalities or serious 

injuries of pedestrians or users of nonmotorized forms 

of transportation to include strategies to address the 

increase in the State’s subsequent State strategic highway safety plan, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Pedestrian Fatalities 

5 Reduction Act of 2014’’. 


dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4507 IH

1 SEC. 2. SPECIAL RULE FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. 

2 Section 148(g) of title 23, United States Code, is 

3 amended by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(3) PEDESTRIANS.— 

5 ‘‘(A) STATE-LEVEL INCREASE.—If the 

6 number of fatalities or serious injuries of pedes7 trians or users of nonmotorized forms of trans8 portation in a State increases per capita during 

9 the most recent 2-year period for which data 

10 are available, the State shall be required to in11 clude, in the State’s subsequent State strategic 

12 highway safety plan, strategies to address the 

13 increase in such number. 

14 ‘‘(B) COUNTY-LEVEL INCREASE.—If the 

15 number of fatalities or serious injuries of pedes16 trians or users of nonmotorized forms of trans17 portation in a county of a State increases per 

18 capita over the most recent 2-year period, the 

19 State shall be required to include, in the State’s 

20 subsequent State strategic highway safety plan, 

21 strategies to address the increase in such num22 ber in that county.’’. 

23 SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION FOR STRATEGIC 

24 HIGHWAY SAFETY PLANS. 

25 Section 148(d)(1)(B) of title 23, United States Code, 

26 is amended— 


dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4507 IH

1 (1) in clause (vii) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

2 (2) in clause (viii) by striking the period at the 

3 end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

4 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(ix) data on fatalities and injuries of 

6 pedestrians and users of nonmotorized 

7 forms of transportation.’’. 

8 SEC. 4. MODEL INVENTORY OF ROADWAY ELEMENTS. 

9 Section 148(f)(2)(A) is amended by striking ‘‘road10 way safety’’ and inserting ‘‘roadway safety, including ele11 ments that improve safety for pedestrians and users of 

12 nonmotorized forms of transportation’’. 

Æ 


dlhill on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4025

MATTHEW BRYAN MARSHBURN,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-99-192, CR-99-193)

Submitted: June 20, 2000

Decided: August 9, 2000

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant

Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, John W. Stone, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Matthew Bryan Marshburn pled guilty to two counts of bank robbery, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) (West Supp. 2000), and was sentenced to a term of sixty-six months imprisonment for both offenses.

He appeals his sentence, arguing that the district court erred in finding

that he had made a threat of death during one or both of the robberies,

and in enhancing his sentence pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines

Manual § 2B3.1(b)(2)(B) (1998). We affirm.

The district court's finding that a threat of death was made is

reviewed de novo. See United States v. Franks , 183 F.3d 335, 337

(4th Cir. 1999). The commentary to § 2B3.1 currently does not

require an express threat of death. The enhancement applies if the

defendant "engaged in conduct that would instill in a reasonable person, who is a victim of the offense, a fear of death." USSG § 2B3.1,

comment. (n.6).

In Franks, this court held that "the combination of the statements

`I have a gun' and `I have nothing to lose' can only be meant to indicate that [the defendant] is both armed and prepared to use his gun."

Id. at 338. Marshburn argues that his statements were merely intimidating, and that the district court's ruling blurs the line between a fear

for safety and a fear of death. However, Franks equated a fear of

being shot with a fear of death, not merely a fear for safety. Marshburn's warnings against sudden moves and, in the first note, his

implied threat that someone could be hurt if his demands were not

met, combined with the statement that he had a gun, would put a reasonable person in fear of being shot and, thus, in fear of death. Therefore, we find that the district court did not err finding that the

enhancement was warranted.

Accordingly, we affirm the sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

 2
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3

3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

SEAN C. CRAWFORD,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 103 MM 2021

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2

nd day of December, 2021, the Application for Leave to File 

Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and the 

Application for an Immediate Hearing are DENIED.
#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Carol Ann BLACK, Respondent.

No. 850 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 26, 2003.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2003, there having been filed with this Court by Carol Ann Black her verified Statement of Resignation dated May 3, 2003, stating that she desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is

ORDERED that the resignation of Carol Ann Black be and it is hereby accepted and she is DISBARRED ON CONSENT from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and it is further ORDERED that she shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

W.D., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, 

RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE. TX, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-1707 

Issued: July 13, 2017 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Brett Elliot Blumstein, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER REMANDING CASE 

Before: 

CHRISTOPHER J. GODFREY, Chief Judge 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

COLLEEN DUFFY KIKO, Judge 

On August 10, 2015 appellant, through counsel, filed an application for review of an 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs’ (OWCP) nonmerit decision dated May 22, 2015, 

which found that appellant’s February 23, 2015 request for reconsideration was untimely filed 

and failed to demonstrate clear evidence of error. The appeal was docketed as No. 15-1707. 

In a merit decision dated January 21, 2014, OWCP denied appellant’s traumatic injury 

claim in OWCP file number xxxxxx098. On August 6, 2014 it received his request for 

reconsideration of the January 21, 2014 decision in file number xxxxxx098; however, the request 

was scanned to OWCP file number xxxxxx095. 

On February 23, 2015 appellant requested the status of his reconsideration request. By 

decision dated May 22, 2015, OWCP denied his request for reconsideration without conducting a 

merit review, finding that the request was untimely filed and failed to demonstrate clear evidence 

of error. It stated in the decision that appellant’s request was untimely because it was received 

on February 23, 2015, more than one year after the January 21, 2014 decision. 

The Board finds that OWCP improperly determined in this case that appellant’s request 

for reconsideration was untimely filed. The time for requesting reconsideration of OWCP’s 

January 21, 2014 decision expired on January 21, 2015. As appellant’s request for 
2

reconsideration was received on August 6, 2014, but was improperly scanned to file number 

xxxxxx095, it was timely filed.1

Accordingly, the Board finds that appellant timely requested reconsideration of the 

January 21, 2014 merit decision. The case will be remanded for OWCP for application of the 

standard for reviewing timely requests for reconsideration. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the decision of the Office of Workers’ 

Compensation Programs dated May 22, 2015 is set aside. The case is remanded to OWCP for 

further proceedings consistent with this decision of the Board. 

Issued: July 13, 2017 

Washington, DC 

 

 Christopher J. Godfrey, Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Colleen Duffy Kiko, Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 1 See Debra McDavid, 57 ECAB 149 (2005).